Separate awards under the unit and multiplier methods for the same disability constitute impermissible double compensation.

On 12 April 2015, M. Jaya was injured when a Tata City Rider in which she was travelling capsized.

Her injuries included a crush injury to her left hand, near-complete thumb amputation and a fracture of the left forearm.

She claimed compensation, stating that she worked as a tailor.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded Rs.28,93,000, including compensation calculated for both 60% permanent disability using the unit method and 50% functional disability using the multiplier method.

The insurer appealed, challenging the quantum and alleging duplication of compensation.

Whether the Tribunal’s award was excessive or contrary to the principles governing assessment of compensation.

Whether the Tribunal could award compensation both for permanent disability assessed by the unit method and for functional disability assessed by the multiplier method.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle that compensation for disability must reflect the claimant’s actual functional loss and that the same injury cannot attract duplicative compensation through overlapping methods of assessment.

It confirmed the multiplier-based award for functional disability but disallowed the separate unit-method award for permanent disability.

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of 50% functional disability, based on the Medical Board’s certificate and the effect of Jaya’s injuries on her work as a tailor and her regular activities.

However, it found that awarding compensation for both 60% permanent disability under the unit method and 50% functional disability under the multiplier method duplicated compensation for the same injuries.

It therefore retained the multiplier-based functional-disability award and removed the permanent-disability award.

The Court also reduced the sums for pain and suffering and extra nourishment, and reclassified the Rs.1,00,000 awarded for loss of income as compensation for loss of amenities.

It directed the insurer to deposit the modified sum with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition, within twelve weeks of receiving the judgment, if not already deposited.

Jaya was permitted to withdraw the amount and accrued interest upon application to the Tribunal.

No costs were awarded.