CMA/1389/2022 of SYED IBRAHIM Vs AYUB MOHAMED on 17 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The petitioner is the appellant before before this Court seeking an enhancement of the Award passed in MCOP No.13 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam.

2. The facts in brief are herein-below set out and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Tribunal.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 22.04.2013, when he was proceeding from his house to Ooty Town to withdraw money from an ATM, travelling on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 43 D 8045, and when he came near Mandhu via Thamizhagam Road, Ooty, at about 11.30 a.m., a Maruti Suzuki Ritz Car bearing Registration No.KL 07 BS 4499, coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner, as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his pelvis. According to the petitioner, the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid car.

4. The petitioner would submit that he was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident and, due to the accident, he had lost sensation below his pelvis and lost the prospect of marriage. Therefore, he had claimed a

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 05:24:20 pm )

CMA No. 1389 of 2022

compensation of Rs.60,85,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

5. The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending car, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending car and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending car.

6. The 3rd respondent had filed a counter, which was adopted by respondents 1 and 2. In the counter, the 3rd respondent had contended that the petitioner was equally liable for the accident and that there was contributory negligence on his part. That apart, the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The respondents had also questioned the duration of the treatment. They would submit that the compensation claimed was exorbitant.

7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On the side of the respondents, one Mr.Jai Kumar, an official of the 3rd respondent, was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. Ex.C.1, the Disability Certificate, was also marked.

8. The Tribunal below after perusing the materials available on record held that the accident had occurred only on account of the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the car. The Tribunal had also observed that, though the respondents had pleaded contributory negligence, they had not proved the same.

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 05:24:20 pm )

CMA No. 1389 of 2022

9. As the petitioner had not produced any document to substantiate his income, the Tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the permanent disability which was assessed at 75%, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier method and awarded a sum of Rs.14,58,000/- towards permanent disability. Ultimately, the Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,17,416/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and seeking enhancement thereof, the petitioner has preferred the present Appeal.

10. The only point for consideration in the above Appeal is “Whether the petitioner is entitled to a higher compensation ?

11. Admittedly, no document was filed to substantiate the income of the petitioner. However, a perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner was running a cell phone sales and service centre.

12. A perusal of Ex.P.7, the Wound Certificate would indicate that, on the date of the accident, the petitioner had (i) tenderness present LS and S1 para spinal region and spinous process (ii) Mild swelling lower lumbar region with paraplegia. The injuries were also graded as grievous in nature.

13. A perusal of Ex.P.5, the Discharge Summary, would indicate that the

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 05:24:20 pm )

CMA No. 1389 of 2022

petitioner underwent surgery and was admitted for rehabilitation from 12.06.2013 to 02.07.2013. Thereafter, on 14.08.2013, the petitioner was once again admitted for rehabilitation. The report indicates that the complaints were as follows: “STATUS L2-S1 POSTERIOR INSTRUMENTED STABILISATION FOR L4-L5 FRACTURE DISLOCATION WITH ASIA ‘A’ NEUROLOGY WITH NEUROLOGICAL RECOVERY.” The report would further show that the petitioner has no sensation in the L5- S.1 in bilateral distribution.

14. Further, a perusal of the Ex.C.1, Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board would show that the petitioner had suffered a Post Traumatic Plagia below the level of the Umblicus and the disability has been assessed at 75%.

15. Admittedly, the petitioner has no sensation in the lower region of his body below the hip and is unable to walk without assistance. Therefore, considering the nature and extent of the disability suffered by the petitioner, the same has to be treated as 100% functional disability, particularly when the chances of the petitioner entering into matrimonial life is rather bleak.

16. That apart, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 05:24:20 pm )

CMA No. 1389 of 2022

petitioner at Rs.9,000/- per month. The petitioner was running a cell phone sales and service centre. However, no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate his income. The petitioner was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident and therefore considering his age and avocation, the notional income is enhanced to Rs.12,000/- per month. Since the case involves 100% functional disability, 40% is added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income is fixed at Rs.16,800/-.

17. The petitioner was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier is 18. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of permanent disability is calculated as follows: (Rs.16,800/- × 12 × 18 = Rs.36,28,800/-)

18. Further, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. Considering the nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone by the petitioner, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Since the petitioner requires the assistance of an attendant for his day-to-day activities, he is also entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future attendant charges.

19. Accordingly, the revised compensation would be as follows:-

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 05:24:20 pm )

CMA No. 1389 of 2022

S.No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or enhanced or granted or reduced

1. Permanent Disability Rs.14,58,000/- Rs.36,28,800/- Enhanced

2. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,99,416/- Rs. 1,99,416/- Confirmed

3. Transport Charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/- Enhanced

4. Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000 /- Confirmed

5. Attendant Charges Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000 /- Confirmed

6. Extra Nourishment Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000 /- Confirmed

7. Future Attendant Charges Not granted Rs.1,00,000/- Granted TOTAL Rs. 18,17,416/- Rs. 41,03,216/- Enhanced

The point for consideration is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner.

20. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal be and hereby is enhanced to a sum of Rs.41,03,216/- from Rs.18,17,416/- together with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. In all other respect the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount (Rs.41,03,216 /-) to the credit of M.C.O.P.No. 13 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam., together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. On such deposit

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 05:24:20 pm )

CMA No. 1389 of 2022

being made, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 17-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHR

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 05:24:20 pm )

CMA No. 1389 of 2022

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SHR To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. CMA No. 1389 of 2022 17-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 05:24:20 pm )

CMA No. 1389 of 2022

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 05:24:20 pm )