Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Mehathaj Begum on 26 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
C.M.A(MD)No.654 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 31.01.2025
Pronounced on : 26.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.A.(MD)No.654 of 2023
&
C.M.P.(MD)No.8456 of 2023
and
Cross.Obj(MD)No.24 of 2023
C.M.A.(MD)No.654 of 2023
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Periyamilaguparai,
Trichy – 1. ... Appellant/ Respondent
Vs.
Mehathaj Begum ...Respondent / Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
1/34
C.M.A(MD)No.654 of 2023
29.09.2021 made in MCOP No.63 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, III Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli and
allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanth
For Respondent : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
Cross.Obj(MD)No.24 of 2023
Mehathaj Begum ...Cross Objector / Respondent
Vs.
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Periyamilaguparai,
Trichy – 1. ... Respondent/ Appellant
PRAYER: Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of Civil
Procedure Code 1908 as amended by Act 104 of 1976, against the fair
and decreetal order dated 29.09.2021 made in MCOP No.63 of 2020 on
the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Subordinate
Court, Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
2/34
C.M.A(MD)No.654 of 2023
For Cross Objector : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
For Respondent : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanth
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
The appellant/respondent / Transport Corporation has filed
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the fair order and decretal order
dated 29.09.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.63 of 2020 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Subordinate Court,
Tiruchirappalli.
The injured claimant has also filed a cross-objection.
2. The brief facts of the petition filed by the claimant before
the Tribunal is as follows:
(a) On 16.2.2017 at about 18.35 hours, the petitioner was
travelling as a pillion rider in a two-wheeler, Yamaha bearing
Registration No.TN 45 BC 3604 which was driven by her father Jeyalani,
they were going to Natharsha Mosque (Pallivasal) in Trichy. Her father
drew the vehicle with care and caution on the left side, viz., western side
of Main Road from South to North, when the vehicle was reaching near
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
the Modern Tools shop, the respondent’s bus bearing Registration
No.TN 45 N 2587, which is a self-insured vehicle driven by its driver in
a rash and negligent manner at high speed coming from behind the
petitioner's vehicle tried to overtake, and suddenly dashed against the
petitioner's two-wheeler.
(b) The petitioner and her father were thrown away from the
vehicle and sustained multiple grievous injuries. The petitioner sustained
fractures and dislocation in the spinal cord (T12 fracture and T11 and
T12 dislocation) and injuries on both hands, both legs and lacerated
injuries all over her body. As a result, the petitioner is affected by total
Paraplegia.
(c) The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the TNSTC bus against whom a criminal case has
been registered under sections 279 and 338 IPC by the Traffic
Investigation Wing (North) Police Station in crime No.37/2017, which is
pending investigation.
(d) Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
to G.V.N Hospital, Trichy and treated as an inpatient for two days
thereafter, taken to Neuro One hospital in Mela Chinthamani, Trichy and
admitted as an inpatient for 13 days continuously treated and till date
she’s taking treatment. An operation was conducted on the petitioner, she
had spent more than Rs.10 lakhs towards medical expenditure. The pain
and suffering undergone by the petitioner during the remaining span of
her life is enormous and excruciating.
(e) Further, she is a B.Com., degree holder and doing an
Accountant job and a sum of Rs.25,000/- derived per month. Due to
serious injuries and fractures with dislocations of T11 and T12 bones in
the spinal cord, the petitioner is affected by total paraplegia, which
paralyses the lower portion of the body. Further, she is living in a
vegetative condition. She is bedridden and unable to move anywhere.
She could not feel the sensation in the lower body. She needs the
assistance of a Nurse to carry on the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner.
The condition of the petitioner is pathetic, she lost everything except
living at the prime of her life. Her suffering cannot be compensated in
terms of money. Her future dreams are shattered into pieces. Her
marriage proposal was affected due to the accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
(f) Therefore, estimate her loss of income in a sum of
Rs.50 lakhs as compensation, which is quite modest and highly
reasonable, the age, nature of injuries, nature of disability, medical
expenditure, and pain suffering to be taken into account. Hence, this
petition
3. The brief averments contained in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
(i) The respondent Transport Corporation denied the entire
allegations in the petition.
(ii) The accident did not happen in the manner as set out in
the petition. On 16.02.2017, the respondent bus bearing registration
No.TN 45 N 2587 driven by its driver with care and caution, which was a
trip from Tiruchirapalli HAPP to Chatram Bus Stand, Trichy. At the
place of the accident, the traffic is meant for way direction from South to
north for the free flow of traffic. At about 18.35 hours, the respondent's
bus proceeded North on the South-North downward gradient of
Ramakrishna Theatre over a bridge driven by its driver with all care and
caution, at that time, the respondent's driver saw a two-wheeler bearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
registration No.TN 45 BC 3604 driven by its driver with a pillion rider
ahead of him. When the driver of the two-wheeler gave way, the
respondent's driver after sounding the horn and switching on and off his
headlights to caution the two-wheeler made his intention to overtake the
motorcycle and took the bus to his right, leaving enough space to his left
for the motorcycle to proceed. When the respondent's bus was in the
process of overtaking the motorcycle, the driver of the motorcycle
suddenly applied the break heavily and turned the vehicle to his right at a
hectic speed and in a rash and negligent manner to avoid collision with a
standing load auto in front of him on the western side of the above road.
Due to this the driver of the motorcycle lost his balance, and dashed
against the left side of the body of the bus, due to which only the pillion
rider fell and was injured. This was how the accident took place. The
accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the
petitioner's father. The driver of this respondent is in no way responsible
for the accident.
(iii) In any event, the accident had happened only due to
composite negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. This
respondent reliably learns that the driver of the motorcycle does not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
possess a valid driving license to drive a motorcycle and he does not
know how to drive. The petitioner ought to have completed the owner
and insurer of the motorcycle, as a proper and necessary party to the
proceeding and on this ground alone, the petition has to be dismissed.
(iv) The age, occupation and income of the petitioner are not
admitted. The nature of the injury, period of treatment, permanent
disability and the expenses incurred towards medical treatment as alleged
in the petition are not admitted and the petitioner is put to proof. In any
event, the interest claimed by the petitioner is very high and without any
basis and the petitioner is entitled to only 6% interest on the award
amount. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the petitioner, PW1 to P.W.3 was examined
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 were marked. The medical board issued disability
certificate which was marked as Ex.C1. On the side of the respondent,
the driver of the respondent bus, namely, Vijayashankar was examined as
RW1 and no document was marked.
5. After hearing both sides, the trial Judge awarded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
compensation of Rs.29,47,968/- under the following heads :
Permanent disability & Rs.18,43,200/-
loss of income
Pain and sufferings Rs.2,00,000/-
For lack of convenience Rs.1,30,000/-
and discomfort
Medical expenses Rs.1,68,768/-
Future Medical expenses Rs.50,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs.50,000/-
Travel expenses Rs.25,000/-
Damages to clothing and Rs.5,000/-
articles
Future loss of income Rs.1,00,000/-
Attendant expenses Rs.3,76,000/-
Total Rs.29,47,968/-
The learned Judge directed the respondent Corporation to pay the entire
amount within two months.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation who is
the respondent before the lower Court against the quantum of
compensation with the following among other grounds :
(i) That the accident had occurred only due to rash and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
negligent driving of the claimant herself and therefore, the driver of the
bus cannot be held responsible.
(ii) That the Tribunal failed to note that the registration of
FIR alone is not sufficient to fix the negligence against the driver, but the
Tribunal ought to have assessed the negligence independently.
(iii) That the Tribunal failed to note that it is well-settled law
that the entire burden of proof lies only with the claimants to prove the
negligence by adducing substantial oral or documentary evidence,
particularly in a claim under Section 166 of M.V. Act which they have
failed to discharge, therefore, the claim petition ought to have dismissed
for want of evidence.
(iv) That the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the
claimant at Rs.12,000/- per month in the absence of any oral or
documentary evidence either to prove her avocation or her income.
(v) That the fixation of loss of earning capacity at 80%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
does not align with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rajkumar Vs. Ajaykumar case reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 581 which
mandates the Tribunal to independently assess the loss of earning
capacity based on the nature of injuries and the impact of the injuries on
the employment the award of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering
Rs. 1,30,000/- towards loss of amenities are excessive and liable to be
reduced.
(vi) That the award of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of future
earnings is liable to be set aside as it is nothing but double compensation
since the Tribunal has already awarded a huge sum of Rs.18,43,200/-
towards loss of income.
(vii) That the award towards attendant charges is also
excessive and liable to be reduced. Hence, prayed to set aside the
judgment of the trial Court and allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
7. Aggrieved with the impugned award, the respondent/
petitioner has come out with the cross objection for enhancement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
compensation on the following grounds :
(a) That the Tribunal erroneously assessed income at
Rs.12,000/- per month, despite evidence of a monthly salary of
Rs.25,000/-.
(b) That the Hon'ble Apex Court and Madras High Court in
various decisions held that 80% disability can be presumed as 100%
disability for determining the compensation amount. The trial Court
failed to follow the judgments while determining disability
compensation.
(c) That the Tribunal failed to consider the Apex Court
judgment reported in 2020(4) SCC page 413 Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand
and Others. In this case, the Apex Court determined attender charges as
Rs.21,60,000/- for a bedridden 12-year-old female child. Therefore, the
attender charges awarded by the Tribunal below are liable to be
enhanced.
(d) That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the head of future loss of income, nutrition expenses and transport
expenses are very low and the same are liable to be enhanced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
Therefore, he prayed to enhance the award amount by modifying the
order of the trial Court.
8. The counsel for the respondent/claimant argued that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the appellant driver
and the appellant Corporation is liable to pay the compensation. He
further argued that after the accident, the claimant was not able to attend
his regular day-to-day activities. After considering the entire evidence,
the lower court allowed the compensation and the award was very low
and the cross objector spent Rs.10 lakhs towards her medical expenses.
9. He further submitted that the claimant also filed a cross
objection seeking further compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore, he
prayed to enhance the award amount by modifying the order of the trial
Court.
10. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material available on records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
11. In this case, the point for consideration is
(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent act of the driver of the respondent or by the
petitioner ?
(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation
awarded by the trial court is just and proper or liable to
be set aside?
12. Ex.P1 is the copy of FIR registered in Crime No.37/2017
by the Traffic Investigation Wing, North Police Station against Thiru.
Vijayashankar, who is the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN 45 N 2587 belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation
under Sections 279, 337 IPC for the rash and negligent act of the driver.
The complaint was filed by Thiru, Jeyalani, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.
No.64 of 2020. On the date of the accident at about 09.00 hours, the
statement of the victim was recorded in the hospital by the police. The
complainant clearly stated that the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner, without blowing the horn tried to overtake
the vehicle and dashed against the two-wheeler. He also clearly stated
that both himself and his daughter sustained injuries due to the accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
13. The appellant contends that the driver of the two-wheeler
suddenly applied the break and turned the vehicle to her right at hectic
speed in a rash and negligent manner to avoid collision with a standing
load auto in front of her on the western side, dashed against the left side
rear body of the bus and sustained injuries. However, the driver of the
bus did not lodge any complaint against the petitioner's father for his
negligent act. The driver of the bus was examined as RW1. During
cross-examination, he admitted that a criminal case was filed against him
by the petitioner's father and charge sheet was filed and the case was
taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate and the same is pending.
14. If the accident was caused due to the negligent act of the
petitioner's father, the first respondent would have immediately
complained about them. No Such complaint was lodged, but the police
officials filed an FIR against the respondent only for his rash and
negligent act.
15. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner in
M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2020 was examined as P.W.1, he had categorically
spoken about the manner of the accident, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
of 2020 was examined as P.W.2, she had also narrated about the accident.
The petitioner proved the negligence on the part of the respondent driver
and therefore, the trial court properly held that the respondent’s driver
was responsible for the accident as he drew the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner. The respondent neither produced any document nor
examined any independent witness to support their case.
16. As far as, M.C.O.P.No.63/2020, the claimant is the
pillion rider of the two-wheeler. She stated that she sustained a grievous
injury in the accident viz., a bone fracture and dislocation of T11 and T12
in the spinal cord, she was paralysed from the hip and entire region due
to the accident. She could not sit, stand or walk. She is in a vegetative
condition and unable to move anywhere and undergo complications due
to the accident.
17. To prove the same, she has produced the photographs
and CD as Ex.P.19, Ex.P.5 the wound certificate issued by G.V.N
Hospital shows that the injuries sustained by her are serious. Ex.P6 is
the discharge summary of Miss. Mehathaj Begum shows that she was
admitted on 16.02.2017 and discharged on 17.02.2017 and diagnosed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
with the 12 compression fracture with paraplegia and she was referred to
Neuro Hospital for further management. Ex.P7 is the discharge summary
issued by Neuro One Hospital reveals that Miss. Mehathaj Begum was
admitted to the hospital on 17.02.2017 and discharged on 01.03.2017,
she was diagnosed with T12 fracture with T11, T12 dislocation causing
total paraplegia, T 11 – L1 pedicle screw instrumented stabilization. The
discharge summary further shows that surgery was conducted on
21.02.2017, as per the Postoperative Course, it was mentioned that the
patient had relief of the spinal pain. There was no change in the
paraplegia as expected. The postoperative X-rays showed the appropriate
position of the pedicle screw system but only minimal reduction. She
was advised to go back to BHEL hospital for continuing nursing care on
an air bed, leg physiotherapy, and other relief.
18. Ex.P8 is the medical identity card for the treatment
taken in BHEL Hospital, Tiruchirapalli. Ex.P9 is the discharge summary
issued by the Gastro Care Hospital for the petitioner, but it is not
connected with the treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident but
for some other disease. Ex.P10 is the MRI scan report dated 17.2.2017,
which is interconnected with Ex.P7. Ex.P11 is the final settlement bill
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
issued by the G.B.N. Hospital (P) Limited, Tiruchirappalli shows that a
sum of Rs.24,846/- was paid to the above hospital for the petitioner. Ex.
P12 is the final settlement bill for the treatment. The petitioner
underwent at Gastro Care Hospital which is interconnected with Ex.P9.
Ex.P13 vouchers issued by the home nursing totalling 48 numbers.
Ex.P14 medical bills, totalling 80 numbers Ex.P21 Prescription, by
Gastro Care Hospital. Ex.P16 is the letter of appointment issued by
Bright Groups company on 9.6.2010. Ex.P17 is the provisional
certificatethe B.Com degree issued by Annamalai University of the
petitioner, Mehathaj Begum. Ex.P18 is also connected to obtaining a
bachelor's degree. Ex. P.20 is the medical bills issued by the original
Homeo medical. Ex.P21 is the certificate issued by Indira Clinic to Ms
S. Maheshwari, who had worked as a Nursing Attender from 10.03.2017
till date to Miss. Mehathaj Begum.
19. On careful, perusal of the entire record, reveals that
the petitioner Miss. Mehathaj Begum met with an accident on
17.02.2017. The said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act
of the driver of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent who is the
owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable to pay the compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
20. The age of the petitioner Miss. Mehathaj Begum on
the date of the accident was 34 years as per the medical reports. The
learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the age of the
petitioner.
21. It is not proved that the petitioner was employed at the
time of the accident and derived income, except the job offer letter
Ex.P.16, she has not produced any document to support her employment.
She has not examined the employer or produced her bank account to
show that she was employed by Bright Group of Companies. However,
Ex.P17 and Ex.P.18 proved that she is a B.Com., graduate and there is a
chance of getting employment. Though she did not produce evidence to
prove her employment, however, she possessed the required educational
qualification to earn and received an offer letter from a company. It is
just and necessary to fix, the notional income, taking into consideration
the cost of living, the rise in the essentials and its inflation, and as per the
notification No.370142(E) No.26,/2008 (F.No.26,/2008) (No.370/42/3/
200 8TPL ) dated 13.6.2008 CPDT specified cost of inflation index, and
as per the cost of inflation index during the year 2017,/18 is Rs.272 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
the notional income per month is Rs.13,705.42. But the trial Court fixed
the income at Rs.12,000/- as notional income. We therefore fix the
notional income at Rs.13,705.42.
22. As per Sarala Verma's judgment reported in 2011(4)
SCC 689, in para 44, the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in
column(4) of the table by applying Amma Thomas, Trilok, Chandra, and
Charlie) which starts within an operative multiplier of 18. The
petitioner's age is at the age between 31 to 35, Multiplier 16 is
applicable.
23. The learned for the appellant argued that the fixation
disability at 80% does not agree with the law, laid down by the Apex
Court in Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2010 (10) TNMAC 581,
which mandates the tribunal to independently assess the loss of earning
capacity based on the nature of the injury.
24. The medical bills produced by the petitioner reveals
that due to the accident, she sustained serious injuries viz T 12 fracture
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
with T11-T12 dislocation, causing total paraplegia which means
paralysis that affects the lower body, typically affecting both legs. This
condition is usually caused by injury or disease affecting the spinal cord,
particularly in the mid back, lower back or pelvic regions. Individuals
may experience loss of movement, sensation, and function in the affected
area. The trial Court records clearly stated that even at the time of
recording her statement, she was not able to stand and depose, but she
deposed her evidence in the bed, as she was affected by loss of
movement in the lower area. In Proof of the same, the petitioner filed
Ex.P7, discharge summary issued by Neuro One Hospital. Apart from the
above Ex.P5 is the wound certificate issued by G.B.N Hospital,
Tiruchirapalli, Senior Civil Surgeon Hospital opined injuries sustained
by the victim lady are grievous. Further, the Medical Board of Joint
Director of Health Service, Trichy issued a medical certificate on
11.3.2021 and the percentage of disability assessed by the Medical Board
is 80%.
25. Apart from the above PW3, one, Maheshwari, a nursing
attendant also supported the petitioner's case by stating that she attending
the petitioner from the year 2017 to date on a salary basis.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
26. In this regard, we rely upon the judgment reported in
Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, The Hon'ble
Supreme Court sets out certain guidelines to assess compensation for the
disablement of the injured by the Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, in
which paragraph Nos.10 and 13 are extracted as follows:
''10. Ascertainment of the effect of the
permanent disability on the actual earning capacity
involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain
what activities the claimant could carry on despite the
permanent disability and what he could not do as a
result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for
awarding compensation under the head of loss of
amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his
avocation, profession and nature of work before the
accident, as well as his age. The third step is to find
out whether (i) the claimant is disabled from earning
any kind of livelihood, or
(ii) whether despite the permanent disability,
the claimant could still effectively carry on the
activities and functions, that he was earlier carrying
on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from
discharging his previous activities and functions, but
could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
and functions so that he continues to earn or can
continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left
hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent
physical or functional disability may be assessed
around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a
carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may
virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to
drive nor do carpentry. On the other hand, if the
claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of
his left hand may not result in loss of employment and
he may continue as a clerk as he could perform his
clerical functions; in that event, the loss of earning
capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or
carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical
disability, but far less. There may not be any need to
award any compensation under the head of `loss of
future earnings', if the claimant continues in
government service, though he may be awarded
compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a
consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured
claimant may be continued in service, but may not be
found suitable for discharging the duties attached to
the post or job which he was earlier holding, on
account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted
to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser
emoluments, in which case there should be a limited
award under the head of loss of future earning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by
treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100%
(or even anything more than 50%), the need to award
compensation separately under the head of loss of
amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear
and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may
have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities
or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be
duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it
may.
13. We may now summarise the principles
discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities
arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning
capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability
concerning 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 based on evidence, concludes that the
percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as
the percentage of permanent disability).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
(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 regarding the extent of permanent
disability. The loss of earning capacity is something
that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal
concerning the evidence in its 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.''
9. A Division Bench of this Court in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Veluchamy and another
reported in I (2006) ACC 416, sets out the parameters
as to when the multiplier method can be adopted in the
case of injury. Paragraph 11 of the decision reads
thus:-
"11. The following principles emerge from the
above discussion:
(a) In all cases of injury or permanent
disablement 'multiplier method' cannot be
mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of
income or earning power.
(b) It depends upon various factors such as
nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
injured and whether it would affect his employment or
earning power, etc. and if so, to what extent?
(c) (1) If there is categorical evidence that
because of injury and consequential disability, the
injured lost his employment or avocation completely
and has to be idle for the rest of his life, in that event
loss of income or earnings may be ascertained by
applying the 'multiplier method' as provided under the
Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Even
so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of
fatal cases as provided under the Schedule. If there is
no amputation and if there is evidence to show that
there is a likelihood of reduction or improvement in
future years, the lesser period may be adopted for
ascertainment of loss of income.
(d)Mainly it depends upon the avocation or
profession or nature of employment being attended by
the injured at the time of the accident."
27. In this case, the medical records proved that the
petitioner was prevented from discharging her previous activities and
functions she is now in a vegetative condition, she suffered loss of
revenue, loss of marriage opportunity, and her future carrier spoiled, due
to the accident, she became helpless and dependent after third person for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
attending natural calls and other basic needs. Therefore, we hold that the
assessment of disability by the Medical Board is proper and the Trial
Court properly applied 80% towards permanent disability. There is no
interference required, the trial Court also properly applied the percentage
for calculating the compensation.
28. As far as future prospects are concerned, the trial
Judge fixed Rs.1,00,000/- for the future prospects in the judgement
reported in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, Para 61 of the judgment
concludes that
61. Given the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-judge Bench in Santosh Devi
should have been well advised to refer the matter to a
larger Bench as it was taking a different view than
what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a
coordinate Bench. This is because a coordinate Bench
of the same strength cannot take a contrary view to
what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision
in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at an earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
point in time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding
precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition
of 50% of the actual salary to the income of the
deceased towards future prospects, where the
deceased had a permanent job and was below the age
of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be
30% if the age of the deceased is between 40 to 50
years. In case the deceased was between the ages of
50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual
salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or
on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the
established income should be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition
of 25% where the deceased was between the ages of 40
to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between
the ages of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The established
income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the
tribunals and the courts shall be guided by
paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with
paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the
basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-
and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts
should be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three
years.”
29. Therefore, for fixation of future prospects in clause
(iii), while determining the income, an addition of 40% of the actual
salary to the income of the petitioner should be made, in instances where
the petitioner was self-employed or on a fixed salary and was below the
age of 40 years. In addition, 40% of the established income should be
the warrant. If the victim or the deceased was below the age of 40 years.
In this case, the victim is below the age of 40 years and for future
prospects, 40% be added to the actual salary. Therefore, she is entitled to
compensation by fixing the same as notional income 13,705.42 + future
prospects at 40% Rs.5,482= Rs.19,187/-. For permanent disability and
loss of income is Rs.19,187 x 12 x 16 x 80% = Rs.29,47,123/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
30. As far as medical expenditure, the record shows that
she has spent a sum of Rs.1,68,768/-, but she also produced medical bills
from Gastro Care Hospital, Trichy, but she was treated for some other
element for a sum of Rs.65,020/- and therefore, she is not inclined to add
the same for medical expenditure.
31. As far as, compensation in other heads viz., pain and
suffering Rs.2,00,000/-, For lack of convenience and discomfort
Rs.1,30,000/-, Medical expenses Rs.1,03,748/-, future medical expenses
Rs.50,000/-, Extra nourishment Rs.50,000/-, nursing Rs.30,500/-, Travel
expenses Rs.25,000/-, Damages to clothing and articles Rs.5,000/- Future
loss of income Rs.1,00,000/-, Attendant expenses Rs.3,76,000/-, we
confirm the award as awarded by the trial Court.
32. Given the above, we modify the award as follows :
Permanent disability & Rs.29,47,123/-
loss of income
Pain and sufferings Rs.2,00,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
For lack of convenience Rs.1,30,000/-
and discomfort
Medical expenses Rs.1,03,748/-
Future Medical expenses Rs.50,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs.50,000/-
Nursing Rs.30,500/-
Travel expenses Rs.25,000/-
Damages to clothing and Rs.5,000/-
articles
Future loss of income Rs.1,00,000/-
Attendant expenses Rs.3,76,000/-
Total Rs.40,17,371/-
33. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
34. The Cross objection is partly allowed. The award passed
by the trial Court is modified and the Appellant/ Transport Corporation is
directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,17,371/- to the respondent/claimant along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of deposit of the amount, less the amount if already deposited to
the credit of MCOP.No.63/2020 on the file of the III Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
Subordinate Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichy, within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit,
the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, less the
amount already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate interest
and costs, by filing an appropriate petition before the Tribunal. No costs.
(G.R.S., J.) & (R.P., J.)
26.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
To
1.The III Additional Sub Court
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Trichy.
Copy to
1.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
Judgment in
26.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:27:57 pm )
