Madras High Court

The Branch Manager vs Dharman on 3 July, 2025

                                                                C.M.A.No.2373 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18492 of 2022


                                  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

                                            C.M.A.No.2373 of 2022 and
                                             C.M.P. No.18492 of 2022

                  The Branch Manager,
                  The New India Assurance Company Limited,
                  No.33/A 2nd Floor 1st Stage,
                  P.B. No.3883, Indira Nagar,
                  Bangalore 38                                                              …Appellant
                                                      Vs.
                  1. Dharman
                  2. Suresh Kumar                                                           …Respondents


                  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
                  M.C.O.P. No.853 of 2013 dated 09.07.2014 on the file of the Special Sub
                  Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.
                                         For Appellant              : Mr.R. Neethi Perumal
                                         For Respondents            : No Appearance




                  1/12




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )
                                                                     C.M.A.No.2373 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18492 of 2022


                                                            JUDGMENT

The present appeal is directed against the Award dated 09.07.2014

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

Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P. No.853 of 2013.

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

ranking in the Tribunal

3. Briefly stated, on 18.05.2008 at about 2.30 p.m., the claimant was

travelling as a pillion rider in TVS Star sport motorcycle bearing No.TN-24-

D-4793 which was driven by one Sikanthar slowly and cautiously observing

the traffic rules. At that time, near Nackenkottai, the car bearing Registration

No.KBV 7065 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the

appellant/Insurance Company driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner which came in the opposite direction dashed against the TVS Star

Sport Motorcycle in which the claimant was travelling, as a result of which,

the claimant and the rider of the said vehicle fell down and sustained injuries

and they were immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm ) C.M.A.No.2373 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18492 of 2022

and after first aid the claimant was taken to the St. Johns Medical College

Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment.

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

driver of the car bearing Registration No.KBV 7065 was the cause of the

accident and that since the said car was insured with the second

respondent/appellant, the New India Assurance Company Limited,

Bangalore, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to him.

5. The appellant/Insurance Company contended that the accident

took place only due to the negligent act of the rider of the two wheeler.

Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm ) C.M.A.No.2373 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18492 of 2022

I. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle?

II. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation?

7. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, came to the

conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle and held that the owner of the car and

the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of

Rs.4,65,780/- to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

8. Through this appeal, the Award of the Tribunal has been

challenged on two grounds, namely,the alleged accident has occurred due to

the negligence of the driver of the two wheeler without proper license and the

next ground is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the

Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm ) C.M.A.No.2373 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18492 of 2022

without any proper evidence and that the claimant has not suffered any

permanent disability due to the said accident and therefore, applying multiplier

method for awarding loss of earning capacity is not justifiable. His further

contention is that the compensation awarded under other heads such as loss of

amenities and enjoyment of life and attender charges is unjust and

disproportionate with regard to the disability suffered by the claimant.

10. Despite notice, there is no representation on the side of the

respondents.

11. The alleged accident is established by the claimant by oral and

documentary evidence. There is no contra evidence with regard to the

occurrence of accident. As alleged by the claimant, but for rash and negligent

driving of the vehicle the accident would not have taken place. Therefore, the

findings recorded by the Tribunal is sustained. In these circumstances, the

only issue which remains for adjudication before this Court is quantum of

compensation payable to the claimant/1st respondent. From the perusal of

Ex.P2 Accident Register issued by the Government Head Quarters Hospital,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm ) C.M.A.No.2373 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18492 of 2022

Krishnagiri, this Court finds that the claimant had suffered the following

injuries.

I. Open wound have exposed 6x4 cm over left foot.

II. Abrasion 8x2 cm over right foot.

III.Laceration 4x2 cm over left side of fore head.

IV.Laceration over right side of chin 1x1 cm.

V. Abrasion below the nose 2 x1 cm.

VI.Swelling over right index finger.

VII.Abrasion over left elbow.

Ex.P3 wound certificate issued by St. Johns Hospital, Bangalore, reveals the

following injuries sustained by the claimant/1st respondent.

i. Lacerated wound over the dorsum of both feet, exposing under both

muscles, bones, tendons left and skin on right side.

ii. Sutured lacerated wound over the forehead, foot and nose, right side of

chin.

iii. Multiple abrasions over face and right hand.

Injury No. 1 and 2 are grievous in nature.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm ) C.M.A.No.2373 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18492 of 2022

12. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

is that the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability due to the said

accident and therefore, the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier method for

awarding loss of earning capacity.

12.1. In cases of permanent disability due to motor vehicle accident,

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is generally justified in applying

multiplier method to calculate compensation. While the disability percentage

is a key factor, the Tribunal should also consider other elements like victim's

age, income and the nature of injury to determine a fair and just compensation.

The multiplier method is a common approach used to estimate the loss of

future earnings due to permanent disability. It involves multiplying the

victim's annual income by a factor (multiplier) that reflects their age and

expected working life. The percentage of disability assessed by a Medical

Board is an important piece of evidence, but, it is not a sole determinant of

compensation. The Tribunal has the discretion to assess the over all impact of

disability on the victim's earning capacity. This includes factors beyond the

percentage of disability, as stated above, such as victim's age, occupation and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm ) C.M.A.No.2373 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18492 of 2022

potential for future income loss. The goal of the Tribunal is to award just

compensation, which means ensuring that the victim is adequately

compensated for his/her loss, both past and future. This may involve applying

multiplier method even with a relatively lower disability percentage,

especially if the injury significantly impacts the victim's ability to earn a

living. Each case is assessed based on its unique facts and circumstances.

12.2. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the object of the

act is ordering of just compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj

Kumar vs Ajay Kumar reported in [(2011) 1 SCC 343] has elaborately dealt

with under what circumstances, the multiplier method in injury cases may be

invoked. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also summarized the principles as

follows:

“(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from 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.

(ii)To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm ) C.M.A.No.2373 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18492 of 2022

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."

Therefore, the Permanent Disability may result in different percentage of loss

of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of

profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors suffered by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm ) C.M.A.No.2373 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18492 of 2022

claimant.

12.3. To assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded, this

Court has to assess whether the permanent disability caused has any adverse

effect on the earning capacity of the injured. In the present case, the injured

was a mechanic and the fracture on the foot would result in higher percentage

of disability for a person like the claimant carrying physical work.

12.4. In the present case, the Medical Board has assessed permanent

disability of the claimant as 30%. The Tribunal also accepted the disability