Percentage method applies where injuries do not cause functional disability or establish loss of earning capacity.

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained when an auto-rickshaw collided with his motorcycle on 14 May 2020.

The Tribunal attributed the accident to the auto-rickshaw driver’s negligence and, among other heads, awarded Rs.80,000 for 8% permanent disability at Rs.10,000 per percentage, and Rs.29,200 for loss of income during treatment; the total award was Rs.2,81,590.

The claimant challenged the quantum, contending that the disability should be assessed using the multiplier method.

The High Court also considered whether other heads of compensation warranted enhancement.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing compensation for the claimant’s 8% disability by the percentage method rather than the multiplier method.

2. Whether compensation for pain and suffering, extra nourishment, loss of amenities, and loss of income during treatment required enhancement.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court applied the distinction between compensation for assessed physical disability and compensation calculated by the multiplier method: on the facts, absent functional disability affecting earning capacity, the percentage method was appropriate.

The Court assessed the other heads by reference to the injuries, treatment, recovery period, and evidence of income.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Medical Board assessed disability at 8%, and the Court found that the claimant’s injuries, including the finger amputation, did not establish functional disability warranting the multiplier method; it therefore upheld the Tribunal’s Rs.80,000 award for permanent disability.

In light of the crush injury, fractures, amputation, and inpatient treatment, it increased pain and suffering to Rs.60,000, extra nourishment to Rs.50,000, and loss of amenities to Rs.40,000.

Although the claimant’s asserted monthly income of Rs.45,000 was not substantiated, the Court fixed notional monthly income at Rs.18,000 and allowed four months’ loss of income, totalling Rs.72,000.

It confirmed medical expenses, attendant charges, and transportation expenses.

The Court directed the insurer to deposit the amount, less any sum already deposited, within six weeks, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit, excluding any period of default.

The claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount subject to credit for sums already withdrawn; the Tribunal’s other directions remained unchanged, and there was no order as to costs.