CMA/2259/2022 of THE BRANCH MANAGER Vs DINESH on 22 September 2026

Common Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Mala J.)

The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, by its Award dated 01.12.2021, made in MCOP.No.196/2018, has preferred the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the injured claimant has filed the Cross Objection for enhancement of compensation.

Since the appeal and cross-objection, arise out of one and same accident which took place on 28.01.2018,the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection are taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

The parties will be referred to as the claimant and the Insurance Company.

The summary of facts are as follows:-On 28.01.2018, at around 8.30 a.m., while the claimant was riding his Pulsar motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-34-U-4327, near Vaipadi Junction, on the extreme left side on the Salem-Kovai National Highway Fourway road, the driver of the Container Lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-22-CE-0056, drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, and hit against the claimant’s motorcycle from behind. Due to the accident, the claimant was thrown on the road

CMA No. 2259 of 2022

and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. The claimant was aged 32 years and as a Quality Controller, employed in MTS Baniyan Company, Tirupur, was earning Rs.25,000/-, as monthly income. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he was incapacitated from continuing his work and therefore, he filed the claim petition seeking a sum of Rs.50 lakhs as compensation.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the respondents 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the Container Lorry, remained exparte. The Claim Petition was contested by the 3rd respondent / Insurance Company, the insurer of the container lorry. The 3rd respondent denied the manner of accident, negligence, liability and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant. The 3rd respondent also contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and speculative. The 3rd respondent, therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined four witnesses and marked 33 documents. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW1 and the Driving License of the 1st respondent was marked as Ex.R1. Through the witnesses, Exs.X1 to X3 were marked and Ex.C1 was marked as Court document.

The Claims Tribunal, on an assessment of the entire evidence on record, held that the negligence of the container lorry driver resulted in the accident. The Claims Tribunal finding that the 1st respondent possessed a

CMA No. 2259 of 2022

valid Driving License and that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent, mulcted the liability on the 3rd respondent. The Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record, and having regard to the disabilities suffered by the claimants, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, awarded a total compensation of Rs.48,77,510/- along with 7.5% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the Award of the Claims Tribunal, the 3rd respondent has filed the appeal, challenging the Award on the finding of negligence and quantum of compensation and the claimant, filed the Cross Objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have heard both the learned counsels and also perused the materials placed before us.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the Claims Tribunal on negligence, was erroneous as it failed to note that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.P1-FIR, found that the driver of the container lorry, while trying to overtake the claimant’s motorcycle, hit the motorcycle on its right side handle, due to which the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Though the 3rd respondent examined the 1st respondent, the driver of the container lorry, as RW1, the Claims Tribunal rejected his evidence since it was contrary to Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P32-certified copy of the Charge Sheet, and the

CMA No. 2259 of 2022

evidence of PW3-M.Krishnan, the Sub Inspector of Police. PW3, the Sub Inspector of Police, who investigated the case, in his evidence, deposed that the investigation, revealed that the 1st respondent’s rash and negligent driving cause the accident and therefore, the Charge Sheet was filed against him. Even though the appellant examined RW1, to controvert the evidence of the claimant, the Claims Tribunal, rejected his evidence as untrustworthy and unreliable since he failed to file a separate complaint regarding the manner of accident and having chosen to remain exparte in the claim petition, had turned up only to give evidence as a witness. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid reasonings, returned a finding of negligence against the 1st respondent. We find absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the appreciation of evidence by the Claims Tribunal and therefore, the contention of the 3rd respondent that the claimant’s own negligence caused the accident, is rejected.

The claimant contended that he was working as Quality Controller in MTS Baniyan Company at Tirupur, and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In support of the said contention, he marked Ex.P24-Payslip for the month of December 2017. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.P24 [Payslip], wherein the gross salary of the claimant was shown as Rs.20,818/-, assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.21,000/-. The Claims Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects and arrived at a total monthly income of Rs.29,400/-. Considering the nature of injuries

CMA No. 2259 of 2022

sustained by the claimant, as evidenced by Exs.P2 to P8, the Wound Certificate as well as the Discharge Summaries and the resultant loss of employment of the claimant, the Claims Tribunal assessed the functional disability at 60%. The Claims Tribunal, adopted the multiplier method and arrived at a compensation of Rs.33,86,880/- towards functional disability. Thereafter, the Claims Tribunal awarded amounts towards other conventional heads and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.48,77,510/-.

At the time of hearing, the Insurance Company disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Having gone through the photographs, marked as Exs.P11 and P12, we thought it fit to summon the claimant to the Court, so as to verify whether the procedures mentioned in Exs.P3 to P8, were performed and the finding as to the functional disability assessed by the Claims Tribunal, was fair and proper.

We find that, as stated in Exs.P3 to P8, the Discharge Summaries, the claimant has undergone degloving of his right hand and circumferential degloving injury of his right lower limb. We also find that due to the injuries sustained by the claimant in his right hand and the injury on his lower right limb, the claimant has not only lost his job but has also become incapable of continuing his earlier work apart from becoming unfit to drive any vehicle. Since, we have visually seen his disabilities, we are of the view that his marriage prospects have also been affected.

CMA No. 2259 of 2022

We therefore find that the assessment of the functional disability at 60% by the Claims Tribunal, deserves to be revised. We accordingly fix the functional disability at 75%..

We further find that the income fixed by the Claims Tribunal is in conformity with Ex.P24-Payslip for the month of December, 2017, wherein the gross salary of the claimant is shown as Rs.20,818/- per month. After adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly was correctly fixed at Rs.29,400/- by the Claims Tribunal. The age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 32 years and therefore, the appropriate multiplier ‘16’ was adopted. Considering the nature of grievous injuries and the functional disability sustained by the claimant, we are inclined to adopt the multiplier method as done by the Claims Tribunal.

Accordingly, the compensation towards functional disability is fixed as follows:- Monthly income of the claimant Rs.29,400/- Applying 75% functional disability assessed by this Court Rs.29,400

x

75% =Rs.22,050/- Applying the multiplier ‘16’, the total income is arrived at Rs.22,050x12x16= Rs.42,33,600/-

We also find that the Claims Tribunal, having adopted the multiplier method, ought not to have awarded compensation under the head ‘’total permanent disability’’. Since, the compensation is awarded by adopting the multiplier method, to avoid duplication, we disallow the sum of Rs.3 lakhs awarded towards ‘’total permanent disability’.

CMA No. 2259 of 2022

The Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1 lakh towards ‘pain and suffering’, which we are of the view is very much on the lower side, considering the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, as evidenced by Exs.P2 and P8 and Exs.P11 and P12. We therefore, fix the compensation towards ‘’pain and suffering’’ at Rs.1,50,000/-.

The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.36,000/- towards attendant charges and for similar reasons as aforesaid, we enhance the compensation towards ‘’attendant charges’’ to Rs.60,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the other heads are found to be fair and reasonable and hence, are not interfered with.

Accordingly, the Award of the Claims Tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl.No. Conventional Heads Amount Awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Amount Awarded by this Court in Rs.

Transport to hospital 50,000/- 50,000/-

Extra Nourishment 50,000/- 50,000/-

Medical expenses 9,51,625/- 9,51,625/-

Pain and sufferings 1,00,000/- 1,50,000/-

Total

permanent disability 3,00,000/- ------

Functional Disability 33,86,880/- 42,33,600/-

Attender charges 36,000/- 60,000/-

Damages to clothes and articles 3,000/- 3,000/-

CMA No. 2259 of 2022

Total Rs.48,77,510/- 54,98,225/-

The appellant – Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the modified Award amount of Rs.54,98,225/ [Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Five only], along with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the web order, if not already deposited. The claimant is directed to pay the deficit court fee. It is made clear that only on payment of deficit court fee, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the modified compensation, along with accrued interest, by filing appropriate petition before the Claims Tribunal.

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the claimant is allowed. The Award of the Claims Tribunal dated 01.12.2021,, made in MCOP.No.196/2018, is accordingly modified. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP

CMA No. 2259 of 2022

To

1. The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Perundurai.

2. The Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Working at 1st Floor, Appavoo Towers, West Maadha Church Road, Rayapuram, Chennai 600 013.

3. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Chennai.

CMA No. 2259 of 2022

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 2259 of 2022 AND CMP NO. 17368 OF 2022, CROS.OBJ NO. 8 OF 2024 22-09-2026