Madras High Court

Sampath … vs Managing Director on 3 July, 2025

                                                                                            C.M.A.No.670 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                       Reserved on                             04.06.2025
                                      Pronounced on                            03.07.2025


                                                          CORAM


                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN
                  THILAKAVADI,J.
                                               C.M.A.No.670 of 2023


                  Sampath                                                                    …Appellant
                                                      Vs.
                  Managing Director,
                  Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
                  Bangalore                                                                 …Respondent


                  Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
                  Vehicles Act,1988, praying to set aside the decree and judgment passed in
                  MACT O.P. No.1420 of 2017 dated 04.11.2019 on the file of the Motor
                  Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.


                                         For Appellant              : Mr. F. Terry Chella Raja
                                         For Respondent            : Mr. T.Thiyagarajan




                  1/12




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )
                                                                                            C.M.A.No.670 of 2023




                                                            JUDGMENT

Seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by judgment and

decree dated 04.11.2019 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1420 of 2017 on the file

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, Thiruvannamalai,

the injured/claimant has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as

per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are follows:

3.1. On 04.04.2017 at about 2 a.m the appellant/claimant was

travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.KA-40-F-1090 belonging to the

respondent/Karnataka State Transport Corporation from Thiruvannamalai to

Hosur, which was driven by its driver in a rash negligent manner and hit the

Tanker lorry from behind, as a result of which, the appellant/claimant

sustained injuries all over his body and was admitted as inpatient in Hosur

Government Medical College Hospital and thereafter he has taken treatment at

many private hospitals.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

3.2. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the bus bearing Registration Number KA-40-F-1090 belonging

respondent was the cause of the accident and therefore they are liable to pay

compensation to him. Hence he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal

claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said

accident.

4. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as

P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On the side of the respondent D.W.1 was

examined and no documentary evidence was marked. Ex.C1 was marked.

5. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, fastened

negligence on the part of the offending bus bearing Registration Number

No.KA-40-F-1090 and directed the respondent / Transport Corporation to pay

compensation of Rs.1,55,858/- to the appellant/claimant together with interest

at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of

realisation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation, the claimant has

filed the present appeal .

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would contend

that the Claims Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of compensation of

Rs.1,55,858/- as against the total claim of Rs.10,00,000/- without considering

the age and occupation of the injured. It is submitted that at the time of

accident, the injured was aged about 38 years and was working as a Manger in

a Tomato mandi earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Whereas, the

Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income of the claimant only at

Rs.6,000/-, which according to the claimant is very low. His further

submission is that the Claims Tribunal failed to consider the nature of injuries

sustained by the claimant and the disability which resulted in loss of earning

capacity. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the loss

of earning capacity of the claimant by applying multiplier method considering

the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. He would further submit that

the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under the heads of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

disability, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, transportation and damages,

medical expenses and loss of income for two months. Hence prayed for

enhancement of compensation to the claimant. He also placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and

Another reported in CDJ 2010 SC 1153 , wherein it has been held as follows.

8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result

of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of

loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact

of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The

Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of

permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss

of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of

economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity,

arising from a permanent disability will be different from the

percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly

assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of

permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of

earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is

45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases,

equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the

extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award

of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be

assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently

disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after

assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of

the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at

the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier

method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however

note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and

assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of

earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is

approximately the same as the percentage of permanent

disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the

said percentage for determination of compensation (see for

example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava

Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE

567).

---

21. As the income of the appellant is assessed at Rs.18000/- per

annum, the loss of earning due to functional disability would be

20% of Rs.18000/- which is Rs.3600/- per annum. As the age of

appellant at the time of accident was 25, the multiplier applicable

would be 18. Therefore, the loss of future earnings would be

3600 x 18 = Rs.64,800/- (as against Rs.55,080/- determined by

the Tribunal). We are also of the view that the loss of earning

during the period of treatment (1.10.1991 to 16.6.1992) should

be Rs.12750/- at the rate of Rs.1500/- for eight and half months

instead of Rs.3600/- determined by the Tribunal. The increase

under the two heads is rounded of to Rs.20,000/-.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent/Transport Corporation submits that the Claims Tribunal had

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

awarded just compensation to the claimant, which requires no interference by

this Court.

9. Heard on both sides and perused the records.

10. Finding regarding factum of accident and the manner of accident

were not disputed and hence, the findings of the Tribunal are hereby

confirmed.

11. As per Ex.C1 disability Certificate, the claimant suffered 20%

permanent disability. The Claims Tribunal has accepted the same and awarded

compensation accordingly. Taking note of the injuries mentioned in the

Medical records and in the disability certificate, I hold that it is not a

functional disability. The claimant has not established that he is suffering

functional disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

The said extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to

be the functional disability of the body nor could it be assumed to result in a

corresponding extent of loss of earning capacity, as the disability would not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

have prevented him from carrying on his avocation as a Manager of Tomato

Mandi, though it might impede in his smooth functioning. Hence multiplier

method is not warranted.

11.1. The Tribunal has fixed Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability

and awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- (20 x 3000) towards permanent disability.

The percentage method applied by the Tribunal is sustained. However,

considering the year of accident, this Court finds it appropriate to fix a sum of

Rs.5,000/- for each percentage of disability. Accordingly, a sum of

Rs,1,00,000/- (20x5000) is awarded towards permanent disability. However,

the compensation awarded in the other heads are confirmed.

11.2. The following tabular column would show the amount

awarded by the Tribunal and the enhanced amount awarded by this Court.

S.No. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.) by this Court (Rs.)

1. Disability 60,000/- 1,00,000/-

                                                                          (20x3000)               (20x5000)






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                  ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )



                        S.No.           Description             Amount awarded Amount awarded
                                                                by Tribunal (Rs.) by this Court
                                                                                           (Rs.)

                      2.           Pain and sufferings                         25,000/-                  25,000/-
                      3.           Loss of amenities                           15,000/-                  15,000/-
                      4.           Extra   nourishment                         20,000/-                  20,000/-
                                   and damages
                      5.           Medical expenses                            18,858/-                  18,858/-
                      6.           Transportation                                5,000/-                  5,000/-
                                   expenses
                      7.           Loss of income (2                           12,000/-                  12,000/-
                                   months)
                                   Total                                    1,55,858/-              1,95,858/-


                                  12. In the result,



                       i. The appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

ii. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,95,858/-

from Rs.1,55,858 /-.

iii. The respondent/Karnataka State Road Transport corporation,

Bangalore, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of

Rs.1,95,858/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from

the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less the amount already

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

deposited by them, within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

iv. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the

same on making appropriate application before the Tribunal.

v. The appellant / claimant is directed to pay court fee for the enhanced