Serious injuries and assessed permanent disability justified multiplier-based compensation.

Devaraj, then aged 29, sustained multiple serious fractures and other injuries when his motorcycle collided with a bus insured by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 5 January 2015.

He sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent but attributed 15% contributory negligence to Devaraj because he had no valid driving licence.

It assessed his permanent partial disability at 50%, applied the multiplier method, and awarded ₹14,61,450 after deducting 15% for contributory negligence.

The insurer appealed, challenging the quantum and the finding on contributory negligence; Devaraj cross-objected, seeking enhancement.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier method and assessing compensation for Devaraj’s injuries and loss of earning capacity.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s finding of 15% contributory negligence against Devaraj required interference because he lacked a valid driving licence.

3. Whether Devaraj was entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded.

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the insurer’s appeal under Section 173 of that Act; the claimant’s cross-objection was under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court applied no cited precedent or separately articulated legal test.

It assessed the Tribunal’s treatment of contributory negligence and compensation by reference to the evidence concerning the accident, injuries, disability, treatment, and earning capacity.

The Court found that Devaraj admitted he lacked a valid and effective driving licence, and therefore declined to disturb the Tribunal’s attribution of 15% contributory negligence to him.

The medical records showed multiple serious fractures, several hospital admissions totalling more than two months and 21 days, and a Medical Board assessment of 60% partial permanent disability.

In light of the injuries and disability, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of 50% disability for compensation purposes and its use of the multiplier method.

It also found the notional monthly income of ₹10,000 and the amounts awarded under the other heads reasonable, and rejected both the insurer’s challenge and the claimant’s request for enhancement.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.