CMA/1481/2019 of HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs R.NATARAJAN on 17 September 2026

JUDGMENT

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

(1) The insurance company has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2016, passed in M.C.O.P.No.60/2014, awarding a compensation of Rs.82,58,250/- for the grievous injuries sustained by the 1st respondent in the motor accident.

(2) The parties will be referred to as per the litigative status in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(3) The summary of facts necessary for deciding the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows: On 04.01.2014, while the petitioner was riding his motorcycle on Poonamallee High Road, at the junction of Velappanchavadi signal, the 2nd respondent's lorry, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant's motor cycle. In the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and later his right leg was amputated. The claimant before the accident was employed as a mechanic in the Sultanate of Oman, and was earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month. Due to accident the claimant was totally disabled from working as a Mechanic and hence, he filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and the appellant, insurance company contested the claim petition by filing a counter. The appellant in its counter denied the negligence, liability and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant. According to the appellant, the compensation claimed was highly excessive and speculative and therefore it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

(4) Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W1 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. The respondents neither marked any document nor examined any witness. The Claims Tribunal on an assessment of the evidence on record, found that the negligence of the 1st respondent’s driver resulted in the accident. The Claims Tribunal further found that the appellant as the insurer was liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal on an appreciation of the evidence on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.82,58,250/- along with 9% interest. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the appellant has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the quantum of compensation alone.

(5) Since the negligence and liability are not disputed, the only point that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is excessive or not?

(6) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.40,000/-, overlooking that the claimant's visa was valid only upto February 2014, and that there was no proof of any employment thereafter. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that the claimant was reimbursed Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical bills/expenses and therefore the Award of Rs.12,00,000/- towards medical expenses was erroneous. The learned counsel further submitted that the

Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier 14 instead of 15, since the respondent was aged 44 years, at the time of the accident. The learned counsel in view of the above submissions submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

(7) We heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

(8) Admittedly, the claimant in the unfortunate accident which occurred on 04.01.2014, sustained grievous injuries, resulting in the amputation of his right leg. The claimant was aged 44 years, at the time of the accident and was a mechanic by profession. Before the accident, the claimant was employed in the Sultanate of Oman and was earning a salary of Rs.60,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal relying on the disability certificate issued by the Royapettah Government Hospital, produced before it, assessed the permanent disability of the claimant at 85%. We are of the view that, since the assessment of disability at 85% by the Tribunal is based on the certificate issued by the Royapettah Government Hospital, the same can be confirmed.

(9) The Tribunal based on the salary certificate, Ex.P7 found that the petitioner was paid salary of 277.23 Rials for the month of December 2013. From Ex.P12, it is clear that the Visa of the claimant was valid till February 2014. Since the claimant sustained grievous injuries on 04.01.2014, the Tribunal rightly fixed the salary at Rs.40,000/- per month based on Ex.P7. However, the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier 15, since the appropriate multiplier as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121] is 14. We further find that the Tribunal failed to consider the claimant's own admission that his employer had reimbursed the medical bills to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the award towards medical expenses should be proportionately reduced. We find that the compensation awarded towards other heads are fair and reasonable and therefore they are not interfered with.

(10) In the light of the above discussions, the compensation towards loss of income is modified to Rs.57,12,000/- (Rs.40000 x 12 = 4,80,000 x 14 x 85/100 = 57,12,000/-), so also, the compensation towards medical expenses is modified to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.12 lakhs – 6 lakhs). In other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. Ergo, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: S.No. Various Heads Award by Tribunal amount in Rs. Award by this Court amount in Rs.

Loss of income 61,20,000/- 57,12,000/-

Loss of Pain and Suffering 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/-

Nutritious expenses 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-

Transport expenses 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-

Medical expenses 12,00,000/- 6,00,000/-

Artificial fixing of leg expenses 4,10,000/- 4,10,000/-

Attender charges 26,250/- 26,250/-

Clothing and accessories 2,000/- 2,000/- Total compensation 82,58,250/- 72,50,250/-

(11) The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, if not already deposited, along with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The claimant shall withdraw the same by filing appropriate application.

(12) Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 14-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dsn To

1. The II Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonamallee.

2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.

P.T.ASHA J. and N.MALA J. dsn CMA No. 1481 of 2019 14-08-2026

C.M.A.No.1481 of 2019 P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. Today, the matter is posted under the caption "for being mentioned".

2. Heard both sides.

3. Considering the fact that the order passed by this Court in the appeal is very much in order, no further orders are required to be passed in this appeal. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 17-09-2026 SRN