In the absence of documentary proof of income for an accident victim, courts may determine notional monthly income by applying cost inflation indices, and disability compensation may be assessed using a percentage-based rate instead of a multiplier when appropriate given the nature of grievous injuries.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 20.04.2026 Pronounced on : 30.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR C.M.A(MD)No.274 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD)No.2480 of 2026 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam Division, Thanjavur District. : Appellant / Respondent Vs.

Prema : Respondent PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2024 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated 12.03.2025.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Micheal Heldon Kumar For Respondent : Mr.D.Boopal

J U D G M E N T

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2024 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated 12.03.2025.

2.The appellant/Transport Corporation, who was mulcted with liability to pay compensation of Rs.17,09,660/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs to the respondent/claimant for the disability sustained by her, consequent to an accident occurred on 08.12.2023, challenged the quantum of compensation awarded at by the Tribunal.

3. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has not challenged the liability fixed on it, but only questioned the quantum of compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the claimant, who was aged 70 years at the time of accident at Rs.16,700/-, on the basis of Cost Inflation Index and in the absence of any documentary proof of income, the Tribunal ought to have fixed a modest notional income appropriate for a senior citizen, which would be substantially lower; that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- per percentage of the disability resulting in Rs.7,40,000/- for 74% disability; that such a high rate per percentage is applied only in cases of young earning individuals and that the proper rate would be around Rs.5,000/- per percentage.

5. He would further contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding multiple overlapping non-pecuniary heads namely Rs.75,000/- each towards (i) pain and sufferings (ii) loss of amenities (iii) loss of expectation of life and the same are excessive; that the amount awarded on each and every head are very excessive and that therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the claimant has suffered multiple injuries including bone injuries; that her right leg below knee was amputated; that the Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence for proof of income, has rightly fixed the income on the basis of Cost Inflation Index as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court; that that the amount awarded under the other heads are very much reasonable and that therefore, the total compensation awarded at Rs.17,09,660/- cannot said to be excessive and is not liable to be interfered with.

7.The claimant, in the claim petition, has stated that she was working as a tailor and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove either her avocation or her monthly income. In the absence of any evidence regarding the income of the injured, the principles and method adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and by the Division Bench of this Court in Andal and others Vs. Avinav Kannan and another are to be followed. In Syed Sadiq’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the monthly income of a vegetable vendor, who sustained injuries in a