IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

and C.M.P.No.17306 of 2021

The Branch Manager,

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No.73, 1^st Floor, Officers lane,

Vellore – 632 001. .. Appellant / 2^nd Respondent

Vs.

1. M.Senthil ..Respondent / Petitioner 2. V.Srinivasan ..Respondent / 1^st Respondent

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.147 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /

Subordinate Court, Uthangarai.

For Appellant : Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari

For R1 : Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj

For R2 : Notice is dispensed with

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Award

dated 18.10.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.147 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Court, Uthangarai, by the second respondent Insurance Company.

2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Medical Board has fixed the disability as 70%, which is on the higher side and the Tribunal has taken functional disability at 40% and applied multiplier method for computing the loss of income sustained by the claimant on account of the accident. She would further contend that continuous treatment record was also not filed. For the injuries suffered, invocation of multiplier method is not warranted and sought for a change in the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent / claimant would contend that on account of the accident, the claimant suffered serious injuries and the Tribunal having taken note of the fact that the claimant would face difficulties in doing his agricultural work and milk business, rightly invoked multiplier method for grant of compensation towards disability.

5. It has come on record through the evidence of P.W.1 – M.Senthil that due to the accident, he sustained (1) head injury – left frontal pneumococcus – (2) Type II open segmental fracture shaft of femur right, (3) Fracture right zygomatic complex, (4) Brachial plexus injury left as per the wound certificate and disability summary Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. The claimant was referred to the District Medical Board, Krishnagiri, for assessment of disability and as per Ex.C1 - Disability Certificate, his partial permanent disability was assessed at

70%.

6. Under what circumstances, multiplier method can be invoked in injury cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated certain principles in Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar reported in [(2011) 1 SCC 343]. The principles have been summarised, which are given hereunder:

“(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."

7. This Court is reminded of the fact that the same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity