CMA/2809/2023 of THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs Venkatesan Alais Venkatesh Alais Venkateshperumal on 14 October 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) The Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore in M.C.O.P.No.1988 of 2019 dated 28.10.2022 on the grounds of liability and quantum of compensation.

2. The Cross Objection has been filed by the claimant seeking an enhancement of the compensation.

3. As per the claim petition, on 04.07.2019 at about 09.10 hours, when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-31-BM-9257 from west to east, at a moderate speed, keeping extreme left opposite to Kalaigner Nagar Path, the respondent Corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN-32-N-4424, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without making horn and without following the traffic rules and regulations, and hit against the claimant’s motorcycle, as a result, the claimant sustained fractures and multiple grievous injuries. Therefore, the claimant had filed a claim petition claiming a total compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- under various heads for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

4. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 7 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. No witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked on the side of the respondent. Apart from that, Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Cuddalore was marked as

Ex.C.1. After adjudication, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.33,43,120/- as compensation to the claimant. However, by fixing 10% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,08,808/- as compensation with an interest of 7.5% p.a. Aggrieved by the same, the Transport Corporation has filed the appeal and not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant had filed the cross objection seeking enhancement.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that, the Tribunal erred in fastening 90% negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant's bus, even though the Tribunal has held that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident by fixing 10% contributory negligence on the claimant, which is wholly unsustainable and the same requires interference. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.29,13,120/- towards loss of earning for the injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant by adopting multiplier method, which is also wholly unsustainable and the same requires to be re-considered. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal and dismissing the cross objection.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the cross objector/claimant submits that in the absence of any test conducted by the hospital authority for determining the presence of alcohol in the injured, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed 10% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, which requires interference of this Court. Further, she submits that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same requires enhancement. Accordingly, she prays for dismissing the appeal and allowing the cross objection.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

8. The first issue, which arises for consideration in this appeal is with regard to 90% negligence fixed by the Tribunal on the driver of the appellant's bus and the 10% contributory negligence fixed on the claimant. This Court is of the view the Tribunal, considering the materials placed before it has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant's bus and fixed

90% negligence on the driver of the appellant's bus and 10% contributory negligence fixed on the claimant, since the claimant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Therefore, it is the duty of the appellant/Transport Corporation to compensate the respondent/claimant. Therefore, on that point, no interference is warranted and the finding recorded by the Tribunal is confirmed.

9. The next issue that arises for consideration is with regard to adoption of multiplier method for the disability suffered by the claimant. Ex.C.1 is the disability certificate issued by the medical board, in which, the medical board opined that the claimant has suffered knee level amputation of right leg and right femur bone malunited and sustained hip injuries and assessed the disability at 85%. Therefore, by accepting the disability certificate, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation by adopting multiplier method by fixing 85% functional disability, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, which is in order and the same does not require interference. Insofar as the notional income fixed by the Tribunal, it is claimed by the claimant he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. by working as a labour and Maistry in Brick kiln. Since the notional income of Rs.12,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side, this Court fixes a sum of Rs.15,000/- as notional income of the claimant. By fixing a notional income of Rs.15,000/- and adding future prospects at 40%, as has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 680, the total income per month is quantified at Rs.21,000/-. Considering the fact that the appellant being aged 27 years at the time of accident, as evidenced from the records, adopting the multiplier of 17 as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the total income of the claimant is arrived at Rs.21,000/- * 12 * 17 = Rs.42,84,000/-. Further, after applying 85% loss of earning capacity assessed by the Tribunal, the final amount towards loss of earning is arrived at Rs.36,41,000/- (Rs.42,84,000/- x 85%).

10. Further, in respect of the compensation awarded under the other heads, the cross objector/claimant has no grievance, and hence, the compensation awarded under the other heads are confirmed.

11. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under :- Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (Amount in Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Amount in Rs.) Loss of Earning 29,13,120/- 36,41,000/- (enhanced) Pain and suffering 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Medical Expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- Extra Nourishment 30,000/- 30,000/- Attender charges 60,000/- 60,000/- Travel Expenses 20,000/- 20,000/- Comfort and Amenities 10,000/- 10,000/- For Fixation of artificial leg 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Total 33,43,120/- 40,71,000/- Total after deducting 10% contributory negligence 30,08,808/- 36,63,900/-

12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.30,08,808/- to Rs.36,63,900/-. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1988 of 2018 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the cross objector/claimant through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter upon production of proof with regard to payment of Court fee on the enhanced compensation by the claimant. The claimant is directed to pay the necessary Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall not disburse the enhanced amount till such time the certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee is produced by the claimant. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sp To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore.

M.DHANDAPANI J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. sp C.M.A.No.2809 of 2023 and Cros.Obj.No.86 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.26142 of 2023 14-10-2026