CMA/301/2021 of THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs MATHANKUMAR on 17 September 2026

Common Judgment

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

CMA.No.884 of 2018 is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Award dated 31.10.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Namakkal, in MCOP.No.1279 of 2015, awarding a sum of Rs.15,73,000/-, to the claimants, the legal heirs of the deceased Muruganandam, who died in the motor accident which took place on 30.06.2015.

Cross.Obj.No.67/2026, is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Muruganandam, seeking enhanced compensation in MCOP.No.1279 of 2015.

CMA.No.885 of 2018 is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Award dated 31.10.2017, passed by the Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.1311 of 2015, awarding a sum of Rs.5,01,900/- to the claimant, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, which occurred on 30.06.2015.

Cross.Obj.No.22/2020 is filed by the injured / claimant, seeking enhanced compensation.

CMA.No.301 of 2021, is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Award dated 12.03.2020, passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Namakkal, in MCOP.No.242 of 2018, awarding a sum of Rs.27,14,295/- to the claimant, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on 30.06.2015.

CMA.No.1520 of 2021, is filed by the injured / claimant, seeking enhanced compensation in MCOP.No.242 of 2018.

Since the appeals and cross-objections, arise out of one and same accident which took place on 30.06.2015, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Cross Objections are taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

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

The summary of facts are as follows:- On 30.06.2015, when the claimant Madhankumar, was riding his Pulsar Bike bearing Regn.No.TN-48-AX-1081, from East to West direction, on the left side of the Trichy-Salem Main Road, along with one Nagarajan and Muruganandam, as pillion-riders and when the motorcycle neared

Padhanithoppu, the lorry bearing Reng.No.TDY-5297, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, and without following the traffic rules, hit the two-wheeler from behind. Due to the impact of the collision, the claimants in MCOP.Nos.242/2018 and 1311/2015 sustained grievous injuries. However, the claimant in MCOP.No.1279/2015,, died in the accident.

Before the Tribunal, the driver and the owner of the lorry remained exparte. The Claim Petitions were contested by the Insurance Company questioning the manner of accident, negligence, liability and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants. The Insurance Company contended that though the 1st respondent had already sold the lorry to the 2nd respondent, the policy of the vehicle was not transferred and further, the driver of the motorcycle did not possess a valid license. The Insurance Company further contended that three persons travelled in the motorcycle, thereby violating the policy conditions. The Insurance Company also denied the age, avocation, income of the deceased as well as the age, avocation, income and the percentage of disability sustained by the injured claimants. The Insurance Company, therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petitions.

Before the Claims Tribunal in MCOP.Nos.1279/2015 and 1311/2015, the claimant in MCOP.No.1279/2015, the wife of the deceased Muruganandam, was examined as PW1, the injured Nagarajan, was

examined as PW2 and Dr.Sivalingam and one Rajkumar, were examined as PW3 and PW4 and 17 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. On the side of the respondents, RW1 to RW3 were examined and 4 documents were marked. Ex.W1-Copy of the Accident Register was marked through PW2.

In MCOP.No.242/2018, the injured / claimant Madhankumar was examined as PW1 and 17 documents were marked on his side. On the side of the respondents, one Punitha was examined as RW1 and 2 documents were marked in support of their case. Exs.X1 and X2 were marked through the witnesses.

The Claims Tribunal, after framing necessary issues and on an assessment of the entire evidence on record, while considering the claim in MCOP.No.242/2018, filed by the pillion-rider of the two-wheeler, in the light of the documentary evidence, Ex.P6-Copy of the Charge Sheet, held that the negligence of the lorry driver alone caused the accident. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record in MCOP.No.242/2018, awarded a sum of Rs.27,14,295/- as compensation to the claimant. So also, in MCOP.No.1279/2015 and MCOP.No.1311/2015, the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.15,73,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Muruganandam and Rs.5,01,900/- to the injured / claimant Nagarajan, as compensation, since it found that the negligence of the lorry driver caused the accident. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company preferred CMA.Nos.884/2018, 885/2018 and 301/2021. Likewise, the injured claimants and the legal heirs of the deceased, sought for enhanced compensation by filing Cross Obj.Nos.22/2020 and 67/2026 and CMA.No.1520/2021 respectively.

The learned counsel for the insurer, the appellant in CMA.Nos.884/2018, 885/2018 and 301/2021, contended that at the relevant time, in the two- wheeler, three persons were travelling in violation of the policy conditions and therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have held that the rider of the two-wheeler was equally responsible for the accident and accordingly, should have apportioned the liability equally. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded to each of the claimants was on the higher side and that the same deserved to be interfered. The learned counsel also submitted that the pillion-riders were under the influence of alcohol and therefore, they also equally contributed to the accident.

The learned counsel for the appellant in CMA.No.1520/2021 and for the Cross Objectors in Cross Obj.Nos.22/2020 and 67/2026, on the other hand submitted that the finding of the Claims Tribunal insofar as negligence is concerned, is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and therefore, the same does not call for any interference. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel submitted that the Claims Tribunal, failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and therefore, the compensation awarded, deserved to be enhanced.

We have heard both the learned counsels and also perused the materials placed on record.

We have gone through the evidence on record. We find that the finding of the Claims Tribunal on negligence, is based on the evidence of PW1- Madhankumar, the rider of the two-wheeler, and the claimant in MCOP.No.242/2018 and the author of the complaint, imputing negligence against the lorry driver. The Claims Tribunal, in the absence of any contrary evidence, on the side of the Insurance Company, and on the basis of the Final Report in Crime No.205/2015 of Thottiyam Police Station, marked as Ex.P6 in MCOP.No.242/2018, held that the negligence of the lorry driver, resulted in the accident. In our view, merely because three persons were travelling on the two-wheeler, at the time of the accident, no ipso facto inference of negligence can be drawn against the two-wheeler rider. The insurance Company having specifically taken the plea that carrying of three persons on the two- wheeler amounted to overloading, was the cause for the accident, was required to establish the same by cogent and acceptable evidence. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the alleged overloading materially contributed to the accident and that the rider was thereby negligent and solely responsible for the accident, the said plea cannot be accepted merely on the basis of number of persons travelling in the vehicle. We therefore do not, find any reason to interfere with the well considered finding of the Claims Tribunal on negligence.

Since we have found that the negligence of the lorry driver resulted in the accident, we proceed to examine the Cross Appeals and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the injured claimants and the legal heirs of the deceased Muruganandham, seeking enhanced compensation. CMA.No.1520/2021:-

CMA.No.1520/2021 is filed by the claimant, the rider of the two-wheeler seeking enhanced compensation. The claimant was aged 22 years at the time of the accident, completed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and was working in a Private Company. The claimant suffered amputation of right arm and from the Disability Passbook of the Government of Tamil Nadu, issued under Ex.P17, the disability was assessed at 70%. The claimant, who was working as a mechanic, lost his right arm and as such, was completely incapacitated from continuing his work as a mechanic. Therefore, we find that the assessment of functional disability at 100% is fully justified. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Claims Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the claimant notionally at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By adopting the multiplier method, the ‘’loss of future earning on account of permanent disability’’ was fixed at

Rs.20,40,000/-. After awarding amounts under other conventional heads, the Claims Tribunal, awarded a total sum of Rs.27,14,295/- as compensation to the claimant.

We find that the assessment of notional income by the Claims Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- for a person with a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, is very meagre. Considering that the claimant was aged only 22 years at the time of the accident which took place in the year 2015, and held a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, we fix the notional income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- per month and add 40% escalation towards future prospects. The income of the claimant is thus fixed at Rs.21,000/- per month. Since the claimant sustained 100% functional disability, we adopt the multiplier method. The claimant was aged 22 years at the time of the accident and therefore, the appropriate multiplier ‘’18’’ is adopted.. Accordingly, the compensation towards ‘’loss of future earning on account of permanent disability’’ is computed as follows:- Notional monthly income fixed by this Court - Rs.15,000/- Add 40% towards future prospects - Rs. 6,000/- -------------- Rs.21,000/- Applying multiplier 18, the total loss is arrived at 21,000x12x18 - Rs.45,36,000/-

Since the amounts awarded by the Claims Tribunal, under the other conventional heads are found to be fair and reasonable, we confirm the same. The Award of the Claims Tribunal, is accordingly modified as follows:- Sl.No. Conventional Heads Amount Awarded by the Claims Tribunal in Rs. Amount Awarded by this Court in Rs.

During the period of treatment ---- -----

Loss of future earning capacity 20,40,000/- 45,36,000/-

Expenses relating to hospitalization treatment and medicines 6,19,295/- 6,19,295/-

Future

Medical Expenses 25,000/- 25,000/-

Pain and Suffering 25,000/- 25,000/-

Extra Nourishment 5,000/- 5,000/-

Loss of amenities ---- ----

Loss of expectation of life ---- ---- Total 27,14,295/- 52,10,295/- Cross Objection No.67/2026:-

The learned counsel for the Cross Objector submitted that the deceased, at the time of the accident, was aged 35 years, was working as a carpenter and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the income at Rs.6,500/- and also erred in allowing 40% towards future prospects instead of 50%. The learned counsel submitted that the award towards other conventional heads was also meagre and hence, prayed that the compensation deserved to be modified.

The Claims Tribunal, considering the avocation of the deceased and in the absence of any documentary evidence, fixed the notional income at Rs.6,500/- per month, added 50% towards future prospects and arrived at the monthly income of Rs.9,750/-. The Tribunal, after applying the multiplier ‘’16’’ appropriate to the age of the deceased, arrived at Rs.12,48,000/- [9,750x12x16] towards ‘’loss of income’’. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh towards ‘’loss of consortium’’, Rs.1 lakh each to the minor children towards ‘’loss of love and affection’’ and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and determined the total compensation at Rs.15,73,000/-.

We find that the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased, who was a carpenter at the time of the accident, which took place on 30.06.2015, at Rs.6,500/- p.m., is very much on the lower side. Carpenters are skilled workers and therefore, we are inclined to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. 40% of the income is added towards future prospects. Since the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier ‘’16’’ is adopted and 1/3rd of his income is deducted towards personal expenses.

The loss of income is thus calculated as follows:- Notional monthly income fixed by this Court - Rs.10,000/- Add 40% towards future prospects - Rs. 4,000/- -------------- Rs.14,000/-

Applying multiplier 16, the total loss is arrived at 14,000x12x16 - Rs.26,88,000/- Less 1/3rd towards personal expense - Rs. 8,96,000/- ------------------ Rs.17,92,000/- ------------------

The award of the Claims Tribunal towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection to the minor children, is modified, to bring it in conformity with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi [AIR 2017 SC 5157: 2017 [16] SCC 680], and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- [Rs.40,000/- each] is awarded towards loss of consortium and love and affection to the wife and two minor children. The funeral expenses is reduced to Rs.15,000/-, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

The Award of the Claims Tribunal is accordingly modified as below:- Sl.No. Conventional Heads Amount Awarded by the Claims Tribunal in Rs. Amount Awarded by this Court in Rs.

Loss of income 12,48,000/- 17,92,000/-

Loss of consortium and love and affection 3,00,000/- 1,20,000/-

Funeral expenses 25,000/- 15,000/- Total 15,73,000/- 19,27,000/- Cross Objection No.22/2020:-

The learned counsel for the Cross Objector submitted that the injured pillion-rider was aged 38 years and was an agricultural coolie at the time of the accident. The learned counsel submitted that since the claimant sustained grievous injuries, and had undergone surgeries, in which DCP plates and 7 screws were fixed, the deceased was incapacitated from using his right hand. The learned counsel submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/-, overlooking that the accident took place in the year 2015 and due to the injuries sustained, the claimant could not continue his avocation as an agricultural coolie.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Cross Objector, the income fixed by the Claims Tribunal at Rs.6,500/- for an agricultural coolie for an accident which occurred in 2015, is very much on the lower side. We therefore, fix the income at Rs.10,000/- per month, 25% is added towards future prospects and the total monthly income is fixed at Rs.12,500/-. Since the claimant was an agricultural coolie and had undergone surgeries in which DCP plates and 7 screws were fixed, we find that adoption of multiplier method is appropriate. However, the functional disability assessed by the Tribunal at 35% appears to be on the higher side and therefore, the functional disability is reduced to 25%.

The loss of income, due to disability, is calculated as follows:- Loss of income:- Notional monthly income fixed by this Court - Rs.10,000/- Add 25% towards future prospects - Rs. 2,500/- -------------- Rs.12,500/-

Applying multiplier 15, the total loss is arrived at 12,500x12x15 - Rs.22,50,000/- Less 25% functional disability - Rs. 5,62,500/- ------------------- Rs.16,87,500/- -------------------

In all other respects, we find that the Award of the Claims Tribunal is fair, just and reasonable and therefore, the same are not interfered with,

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

Loss of earning capacity 4,09,500/- 16,87,500/-

Medical Bilss 62,447/- 62,447/-

Pain and Sufferings 10,000/- 10,000/-

Loss of amenities 10,000/- 10,000/-

Loss of nutrition 5,000/- 5,000/-

Transportation expenses 5,000/- 5,000/- Total 5,01,947/- 17,79,947/-

In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in CMA.Nos.884 and 885/2018 and 301/2021 and hence, the same are dismissed.

Insofar as CMA.No.1520/2021 and Cross Objections No.22/2020 and 67/2020, we find merit and accordingly, CMA.No.1520/2021 is partly allowed and Cross Objections No.22/2020 and 67/2026 are allowed.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the following modified / enhanced Award amounts along with 7.5% interest 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 of this judgment, if not already deposited. Sl.No. Case Numbers Amount Awarded by this Court in Rs.

CMA.No.1520 of 2021 Rs.52,10,295/- [Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Five only]

Cross

Objection No.67/2026 Rs.19,27,000/- [Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand only]

Cross

Objection No.22/2020 Rs.17,79,947/- [Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven only]

The claimants, on such deposit by the Insurance Company, are directed to pay the deficit Court fee and thereafter, shall be entitled to withdraw the aforesaid modified respective Award amounts along with the accrued interests, as per the apportionment directed by the Claims Tribunal, by filing appropriate applications before the Claims Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 17-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP

To

1. The Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Namakkal.

2. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Namakkal.

3. Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, 1171, Mutthiah Complex, Erode 638 011.

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

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 301 of 2021 AND CROS.OBJ NO. 22 OF 2020, CROS.OBJ NO. 67 OF 2026, CMA NO. 884 OF 2018, CMA NO. 885 OF 2018, CMA NO. 1520 OF 2021 17-09-2026