CMA(MD)/663/2023 of PRAKASH Vs SELVARANI on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 645 of 2015, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul, has filed the present C.M.A.(MD).No.663 of 2023, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 05.12.2022.

2. Facts of the Tribunal:

2.1. The claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest, contending that on 02.08.2015, while he was travelling in a Hyundai car bearing Registration No. TN-58-M-6562 along the Kumbakonam–Thirumanancheri Road, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and rammed into a house situated on the roadside. In the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to his spinal cord, head and leg. Other occupants of the vehicle also sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai on 02.08.2015 and continued to undergo treatment until 09.10.2015. Owing to the spinal cord injury, the claimant suffered paraplegia and became bedridden, losing his ability to carry out his ordinary day-to-day activities independently. He further contended that the injuries had deprived him of his ability to continue his avocation as a teacher and had substantially

impaired his quality of life. On these grounds, he sought compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest.

2.2. The insurance company filed its counter denying the alleged manner of the accident and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed.

2.3. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.21,35,364/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, subject to its direction regarding the period of default. Sl.No. Heads Amount (in Rs.)

Loss of Income 11,42,400/-

Medical expenses 9,42,964/-

Transportation Charges 10,000/-

Pain and Suffering 30,000/-

Extra Nourishment 10,000/- Total awarded amount Rs.21,35,364/-

3.2. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

4. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant:

4.1. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the accident had completely shattered the claimant’s life. Owing to the spinal cord injury and consequent paraplegia, the claimant had become bedridden and was unable to perform his ordinary activities without assistance. He required the continuous assistance of two attendants for his day-to-day needs.

4.2. The learned counsel further submitted that, although the Tribunal adopted the multiplier method, it restricted the loss of earning capacity to 40%, without properly appreciating the functional consequences of paraplegia and the claimant’s inability to continue his avocation as a teacher. The claimant had not merely sustained a physical disability; he had suffered a substantial loss of functional independence and earning capacity.

4.3. It was contended that the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- adopted by the Tribunal was inadequate and that the compensation awarded towards loss of earning capacity required enhancement. The learned counsel also sought compensation towards attendant charges by adopting the multiplier method, having regard to the claimant’s permanent and continuing need for assistance.

4.4. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied upon several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, particularly the decision of this Court in Sevakami Case, wherein the multiplier method was adopted for assessing attendant charges in the case of a teacher who had sustained serious injuries, including an injury to the right hand resulting in amputation. The learned counsel submitted that, when the multiplier method had been applied towards attendant charges even in a case where the injured teacher continued to work, the same principle ought to be applied intensively in the present case, where the claimant had suffered paraplegia and required continuous assistance.

5. According to the insurance company, the Tribunal had properly assessed the compensation under the relevant heads, and no further enhancement was warranted. The learned counsel, therefore, sought dismissal of the appeal.

6. This Court considered the submission made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

7. Points for Determination:

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in restricting the claimant’s loss of earning capacity to 40%, for the claimant suffering from paraplegia and the resultant functional limitations?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of

compensation towards attendant charges by adopting the multiplier method?

(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation under any other head?

8. Discussion and Findings:

8.1. Appreciation of Evidence and Loss of Earning Capacity:

(i) This Court carefully perused the evidence of the injured claimant. P.W.1 specifically deposed that he sustained a serious spinal cord injury, particularly at the C7 level, apart from injuries to other parts of his body. He further stated that he underwent inpatient treatment on three occasions in Meenakshi Mission Hospital and subsequently received treatment in Christian Mission Hospital, as evidenced by Ex.P6. The relevant medical records were marked before the Tribunal. He also underwent treatment in Muthu Clinic, as evidenced by Ex.P13.

(ii) The evidence on record establishes that the claimant sustained a serious spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia and a substantial impairment of his mobility and functional independence. The learned Tribunal, in paragraph 8 of its award, specifically observed that the claimant could undertake work in a sitting position at his residence but could not travel outside his house to pursue his avocation. The claimant also admitted that he had lost his employment as a teacher.

(iii) The finding of the learned Tribunal, extracted in substance, is that the claimant might be able to undertake some work while sitting at home, but would be unable to travel outside his residence for employment. As the extent of the spinal cord injury was not fully reflected in the disability assessment, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 40%.

(iv) The reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal, however, requires reconsideration. Having found that the claimant was unable to travel outside his residence to pursue his employment and that he had lost his job as a teacher, the Tribunal ought to have examined the actual impact of the disability upon his earning capacity. The mere possibility of undertaking some work while sitting at home cannot, by itself, establish that the claimant retained 60% of his earning capacity.

(v) The assessment of functional disability must be made with reference to the nature of the injury, the avocation of the injured person, the physical requirements of that avocation and the practical consequences of the disability. In the present case, the claimant was a teacher. His ability to continue his employment, travel to his workplace and discharge his professional responsibilities must be considered in the light of the condition of paraplegia and consequent immobility.

(vi) The evidence further indicates that the claimant is unable to

pursue his former employment and is also substantially restricted in his ability to undertake tuition work independently. Therefore, the assessment of loss of earning capacity at 40% does not adequately reflect the functional consequences of the injuries sustained by him.

(vii) Having regard to the nature of the spinal cord injury, the resultant paraplegia, the claimant's inability to travel outside his residence for employment and the loss of his teaching profession, this Court considers it appropriate to assess the functional loss of earning capacity at 80%.

9. Assessment of Future Loss of Earnings:

9.1. The Tribunal adopted a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. In the absence of sufficient material warranting a different assessment of the established income, this Court adopts the same monthly income as the multiplicand.

9.2. The claimant was aged 30 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, future prospects are required to be considered in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. Applying an addition of 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income works out to Rs.14,000/-.

9.3. Applying the multiplier of 17 applicable to the claimant's age

and assessing the functional loss of earning capacity at 80%, the compensation towards loss of future earnings is calculated as follows:

- Monthly income: Rs.10,000/-

- Addition towards future prospects at 40%: Rs.4,000/-

- Monthly income after addition: Rs.14,000/-

- Annual income: Rs.14,000 × 12 = Rs.1,68,000/-

- Multiplier: 17

- Functional loss of earning capacity: 80%

9.4. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of future earning capacity is calculated at Rs.22,84,800/- (Rs.14,000 × 12 × 17 × 80/100). The amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head shall be adjusted against the aforesaid amount to arrive at the net enhancement.

10. Attendant Charges:

10.1. The next issue concerns the compensation payable towards attendant charges. The claimant's specific case is that, owing to the spinal cord injury and resultant paraplegia, he is unable to move independently and requires assistance from others to perform his ordinary day-to-day activities.

10.2. The requirement of an attendant in the present case is not merely incidental to the period of hospitalisation. The nature of the injury resulting in permanent functional limitations indicate a continuing need

for assistance. The claimant's entitlement under this head must, therefore, be assessed in the light of the necessity of continuous assistance.

10.3. The learned counsel for the claimant relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of The Managing Director vs G.Sivagami, in C.M.A.(MD).No.107 of 2021 and C.M.A.(MD).No.567 of 2020, in support of the contention that the multiplier method may be adopted for assessing attendant charges in an appropriate case and relied the following paras: “16.Normally, the cost of attendant is awarded only for the purpose of taking care of the injured till he is able to look after himself. The inability to take care during the period of hospitalisation and post- hospitalisation for a specified period of time is generally the norm while awarding compensation for attendant charges. However, in exceptional case, where the injured is immobile and in case like amputation, there is total inability on the part of the injured to take care of himself or herself without aid of attendant's service for an undefined period and in such cases, the court has to take into consideration the necessity for award of just and reasonable compensation. More particularly, in the case of the amputation of any part of the women as a result of the accidental injuries, the Court has to consider the attendant's charges by adopting the multiplier method for simple reason that the gratuitous services rendered by women to her family members cannot be measured with that of services of an employee.

16.1. Similarly, in the following cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has adopted the multiplier method to arrive the proper attendant's charges Case Laws Relevant Portions Kavitha Vs. Deepak reported in 2012 ACJ

Attendant charges calculated as follows: Rs.2,000/- p.m for 25 years

Rs.2,000/- X12X25=Rs.6,00,000/- Kajal

Vs. Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 4 SCC

413. The multiplier system should be followed

not

only

for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges, etc. We, therefore, assess the cost of one attendant at Rs. 5,000/- which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- p.a and using the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs.21,60,000/- for the attendant charges for her entire life. This takes care of all the pecuniary damages. Abhimanyu Partap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon reported in 2022 8 SCC

489. As discussed, if we apply the multiplier method and in view of the judgment of Kajal, we accept the rate of attendant charges at Rs.5,000/- p.m for 12 hours, looking to the nature of injuries and disability the claimant is required two attendants at least within 24 hours then the expenses in the head of attendant charges comes to Rs.10,000/- p.m. If we apply the multiplier of 18, the amount comes to Rs. 21,60,000/-

10.4. This Court inclines to follow the above principles in this case. Having regard to the claimant's paraplegia, his inability to move independently and the continuing assistance required by him, this Court finds that the present case warrants a separate and realistic assessment of attendant charges. The compensation under this head must reflect the continuing nature of the claimant's dependence upon others and cannot be confined mechanically to the period of inpatient treatment. For the purpose of quantification, if the reasonable monthly attendant charge is assessed at Rs.1,000/- and the period of assistance is assessed at 30 years, the calculation would be as follows: Rs.1,000 × 12 × 30 = Rs.3,60,000/-.

10.5. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- is assessed towards attendant charges, subject to consideration of the applicable legal principles, the evidence regarding the claimant's continuing need for assistance and the avoidance of duplication with any amount already awarded under this head.

11. Compensation towards Permanent Disability:

11.1. The disability certificate and the medical evidence must be considered to determine the extent of the claimant's permanent disability. The assessment of permanent physical disability serves a purpose distinct from the assessment of loss of earning capacity, provided that the two

awards compensate different consequences and do not result in duplication as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2012) 12 SCC 274.

11.2. In the present case, having regard to the serious spinal cord injury and the resultant permanent impairment, this Court considers it appropriate to award compensation for permanent disability at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per percentage, subject to verification of the disability percentage established by the medical evidence. If the disability is established at 65%, the compensation under this head would be: Rs.5,000 × 65 = Rs.3,25,000/-.

11.3. The percentage adopted must correspond to the disability proved by the medical records and accepted by the Court. The assessment cannot be altered from 40% to 65% without an express finding supported by the disability certificate and other medical evidence.

12. Pain and Suffering:

12.1. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. Having regard to the severity of the spinal cord injury, the prolonged treatment, the resultant paraplegia and the permanent consequences affecting the claimant's mobility and independence, the amount awarded under this head is inadequate.

The claimant has been deprived of the ability to lead his life with the physical independence as he had before the accident. The consequences extend beyond the immediate pain experienced during treatment. Accordingly, this Court enhances the compensation towards pain and suffering to Rs.1,00,000/- in total, inclusive of the amount already awarded under this head.

13. Loss of Amenities:

13.1. The Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of amenities. The claimant's paraplegia and consequent dependence upon others have substantially impaired his ability to enjoy the ordinary amenities of life and undertake routine activities independently.

13.2. Considering the permanent nature of the functional limitations and their impact upon the claimant's day-to-day life, this Court awards a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities.

14. Future Medical Expenses:

14.1. The Tribunal did not award any amount towards future medical expenses. Considering the nature of the spinal cord injury and the possibility of continuing medical care and treatment arising from the permanent consequences of the injury, this Court considers it appropriate to award Rs.1,75,000/- towards future medical expenses, provided that the medical evidence and the circumstances of the case support the

requirement of such future expenditure.

15. Conclusion:

15.1. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement, particularly towards loss of future earning capacity, attendant charges, permanent disability, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and future medical expenses.

15.2. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is re-determined as follows:- Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Re-quantified amount by this Court (in Rs.) Status

Loss of Income 11,42,400/- 22,84,800/- Enhanced

Medical expenses 9,42,964/- 9,42,964/- Confirmed

Transportation Charges 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed

Pain and Suffering 30,000/- 30,000/- Confirmed

Extra Nourishment 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed

Attendant charges ----------- 3,60,000/- Awarded

Permanent Disability ----------- 3,25,000/- Awarded Total awarded amount Rs.21,35,364/- Rs.39,62,764/- Enhanced

16. Result:

16.1. Accordingly, this C.M.A.(MD).No.663 of 2023 is partly allowed.

16.2. The award passed in M.C.O.P.No.645 of 2015 dated 05-12-2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Dindigul is enhanced from Rs.21,35,364/- to Rs.39,62,764/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, subject to the applicable directions of the Tribunal concerning any period of default or exclusion of interest, ensuring that no amount is duplicated.

16.3. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount of Rs.39,62,764/-, together with the applicable interest, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving credit to the amounts already deposited.

16.4. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount in accordance with law. No order as to costs. 02.11.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AKM

To

1. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Dindigul.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. AKM CMA(MD) No. 663 of 2023 02.11.2026