Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
Murali - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Sree Balaji Blocks, Prop. R. Manjunatha – Respondent
C.M.A.No. 2584 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2006
Important Points
Subject
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Quantum
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.279, S.337, S.338
Headnote
(B) Compensation for permanent disability - Distinction between physical disability and functional loss of earning capacity - Tribunal cannot mechanically apply medical disability percentage as economic loss; must assess impact on victim's earning capacity, profession, and age using multiplier method per doctrine of equity - Reference to principles in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar on ascertaining effect of disability on future earnings. (Paras 8, 8.1)
Facts of the case:
Pillion rider on motorcycle collided with tipper lorry driven rashly and negligently on flyover bridge, sustaining grievous right leg injuries, treated as inpatient, assessed 60% permanent disability; claimed Rs.70 lakhs; Tribunal awarded Rs.7,15,506/- with 10% contributory negligence deduction; appeal for enhancement.
Findings of Court:
Compensation enhanced to Rs.29,48,945/-; notional income Rs.21,000/- p.m., multiplier 18, 60% loss; insurer deposit with 7.5% interest from petition date, recoverable from owner.
Issues: Whether Tribunal erred in using per percentage method instead of multiplier for disability compensation; assessment of functional loss for engineering student.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts must determine functional loss of earning capacity distinct from physical disability percentage, applying multiplier method based on victim's age, profession, and injury impact for just compensation.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
For the Appellant : Mr. P.A.Sudesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Suresh Srinivasan
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident facts and tribunal's initial award. (Para 4) |
| 2. claimant seeks higher compensation. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by the appellant /claimant for enhancement of the sum awarded in M.C.O.P. No.262 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosur.
2. Shortly stated, on 20.08.2018 at about 8 a.m., the appellant /petitioner was travelling as pillion rider in a TVS Star City Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-70-V-9817, which was ridden by his friend Ajith Kumar. While they were proceeding towards Hosur, on Attibele Andhivadi Check post road, on Nangapuram Railway Flyover Bridge, a Bharat Benz Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-9844, belongs to the 1st respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle in which the appellant/petitioner was travelling, as a result of which, the appellant and his friend fell down and sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to Government Hospital, Hosur. The appellant / petitioner was treated as inpatient and was discharged on 28.08.2018. A case has been registered against the driver of the lorry in Cr.No.244/2018 under Section 279, 337, 338 IPC. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said lorry. 3. The claimant filed the above MCOP claiming compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.7,15,506/- after deducting 10% towards negligence on the part of the deceased rider of the two wheeler, since he did not posses driving license at the time of accident and directed the 2nd respondent Insurance Company to pay the said amount to the appellant / petitioner, at the first instance and then recover the same from the 1st respondent / owner of the lorry, since the driver of the 1st respondent lorry had no valid driving license at the time of accident.
4. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would contend that the appellant/ petitioner had sustained Right leg tibia bone fracture near knee joint, right ankle fracture with bone loss, deep lacerated wound on the right leg exposing tendons, Pain, swelling, tenderness of right leg and right foot and ROM of right leg painful and restricted and was assessed permanent disability at 60% by the Medical Board. He would further submit that, without taking into consideration the serious nature of injuries, the Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre amount of Rs.2,40,000/- towards partial permanent disability by applying per percentage method instead of multiplier method. Further, the appellant has spent more than Rs.6,00,000/- towards hospitalization and other expenses. Hence prayed for enhancement of compensation.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent /Insurance Company submitted that, the Tribunal has considered the materials on record and had awarded 'just compensation' which requires any interference by this Court.
7. Heard on both sides. Records perused.
8. On a perusal of records it is seen that, as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P11 discharge summaries, the petitioner has sustained Type II hawkins talus fracture with bone loss over lateral aspect of right talus (Type III B gustilo Anderson), right proximal tibia lateral condyle Talus neck fracture fixation with screws, lateral condyle fracture proximal tibia with plate and CC Srew and plastic surgery procedure was conducted on 20.08.2018 and the medical board has assessed 60% partial permanent disability. It is not in dispute that the injured was
