CMA/2615/2026 of M/s RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs S. Bhuvaneshvaran on 16 September 2026

Common Judgment

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

CMA.No.2615/2026 is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Award dated 04.03.2025, of the Claims Tribunal, made in MCOP.No.159/2022, in awarding a compensation of Rs.29,50,677/- to the claimant.

CMA.No.2144/2025 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation and to set aside the finding on contributory negligence fixed on the claimant at 10%.

Since both the appeals arise out of one and the same Award, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the claim petition.

The summary of facts are as follows:- On 08.07.2021, at about 11.00 p.m., while the claimant was riding his Pulsar motorbike bearing

Regn.No.TN-37-BD-4072, on Kottaipalayam-Vellaimadai road and when nearing a public toilet, at A.S.Palayam, a Tata Eicher Van, bearing Regn.No.TN-12-K-1031, came in the opposite direction, and dashed the claimant’s motorbike. Due to the impact of the accident which was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Eicher Van by its driver, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. At the time of the accident, the claimant was working as a two-wheeler mechanic, selling spare parts for two-wheelers by running an automobile shop, in the name and style as ‘’Mani Automobiles’’, at Kovilpalayam, Coimbatore, and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. Since the claimant suffered grievous injuries in the accident, which completely immobilized him, he filed the claim petition seeking a sum of Rs.29 lakhs as compensation, against the driver, owner and the insurer of the Tata Eicher Van.

Before the Tribunal, the driver and the owner of the Tata Eicher Van remained exparte. The claim petition was contested by the 3rd respondent, the insurer of the Tata Eicher Van, which filed a detailed counter denying the manner of the accident, negligence, liability and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant. The 3rd respondent, contended that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the claimant who was drunk at the time of the accident. The 3rd respondent contended that the claimant did not possess a valid driving license and was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. The 3rd respondent further contended that the compensation claimed was exorbitant and speculative and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. The 3rd respondent examined one witness as RW1 and marked 6 documents as Exs.R1 to R6. The Disability Certificate issued to the claimant by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1 [Court document].

The Claims Tribunal, after framing necessary issues, found that the negligence of the Tata Eicher Van driver, caused the accident. The Claims Tribunal finding that the claimant neither possessed a valid driving license or a valid insurance policy for his motorbike, at the time of the accident, held that he had contributed to the accident and therefore apportioned the negligence in the ratio 90 : 10 [90% for the Tata Eicher Van driver and 10% for the claimant]. The Claims Tribunal found that the 3rd respondent, was liable to pay the compensation amount since at the time of the accident, there was a subsisting insurance policy for the offending vehicle. In the absence of any documentary evidence in support of the income of the claimant, the Claims Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/-. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.C1, the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, fixed the permanent disability of the claimant at 95%. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, it held that the claimant had suffered 100% functional disability. The Claims Tribunal, following the established legal principles, awarded a total compensation of Rs.29,50,677/-, after deducting 10% towards contributory negligence of the claimant, even though the claimant claimed Rs.29 lakhs only. Not satisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the claimant has preferred CMA.No.2144/2025 and challenging the Award, the Insurance Company has preferred CMA.No.2615/2026, on the grounds of breach of policy conditions, finding on the contributory negligence and quantum of compensation.

The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the driver of the Tata Eicher Van, the 1st respondent, was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident and since there was a breach of the policy conditions, the 3rd respondent was not liable to pay the compensation amount. The learned counsel submitted that the finding on contributory negligence at 10% against the claimant was arbitrary and unsustainable. The learned counsel further submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the functional disability at 100%, overlooking the nature of disabilities sustained by the claimant. The learned counsel therefore prayed to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the 3rd respondent.

The learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand submitted that the Claims Tribunal, in the absence of any finding on the nature of the claimant’s contributory negligence, erred in fixing the contributory negligence of the claimant at 10% merely on the basis of non-possession of a valid driving license and insurance policy by the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional monthly income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- only, when admittedly the claimant was a mechanic by profession and running a Automobile shop and earning more than Rs.40,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was meagre, in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the 100% functional disability sustained by him. The learned counsel therefore prayed that the Award of the Claims Tribunal insofar as, the finding on the contributory negligence and the quantum of compensation, calls for interference.

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

The Claims Tribunal, based on Ex.P1-FIR, found that the negligence of the 1st respondent-driver of the Tata Eicher Van, resulted in the accident. However, the Tribunal deducted 10% of the compensation amount towards the contributory negligence of the claimant, for mere non- possession of a valid driving license and insurance policy for his motorbike. We find that the finding of the Claims Tribunal on contributory negligence, as contended by the learned counsel for the claimant, cannot be sustained for the simple reason that in the absence of a factual finding on how the claimant contributed to the accident, mere non-possession of driving license and an insurance policy ipso facto, cannot lead to a conclusion of negligence against him. Negligence has to be proved as a fact and unless and until evidence is led to prove that the claimant contributed to the accident, mere non-possession of the driving license or the policy copy, cannot lead to an inference of negligence against the claimant. Therefore, we set aside the Award of the Claims Tribunal, insofar as it attributes contributory negligence at 10% against the claimant.

As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we find that the Medical Board, in its Disability Certificate, marked as Ex.C1, has recorded the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident, as follows:-

1. Right Distol Femur Fracture.

2. Right leg – both bone fracture.

3. Right clavicle Fracture.

4. Right Talus Fracture.

The Medical Board, on clinical examination of the claimant, found that there was amputation of the right leg above knee. The Medical Board therefore calculated the present disability as follows:- Right above knee amputation -80%

Right Shoulder mobility, impairment - 24% Right elbow mobility, impairment

- 24% Right wrist mobility, impairment

- 24% -------- 72% --------- 80 Vs 75 = 88% [a+b [90-a]]/90 = 88% Right dominant extremity involvement 7% 88% + 7% = 95%

The Medical Board concluded that the nature of physical disability was locomotor disability and that the percentage of physical disability was 95%.

The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid Certificate of the Medical Board, fixed the functional disability at 100%, since the claimant, who was a mechanic by profession, had lost his right leg above the knee and as such, incapacitated from continuing his profession. In view of the aforesaid Medical Board Certificate as well as the avocation of the claimant, we are of the view that there is absolutely no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal on the assessment of the functional disability of the claimant.

The Claims Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence in support of the monthly income of the claimant, fixed the income at Rs.10,000/-, which in our view is very meagre. The accident occurred in 2021 and therefore, considering the age and avocation of the claimant, we are of the view that the notional income can be fixed at Rs.20,000/-. We therefore, fix the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.20,000/-.

The compensation towards Permanent Loss of income is therefore modified as follows:- Notional monthly income - Rs.20,000/- Add 40% towards future prospects - Rs. 8,000/-

----------------

Rs.28,000/-

----------------- Total loss of income = 28,000 x 12 x 17 x 95%=Rs.54,26,400/-

The Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs.30,000/- towards ‘’attendant charges’’. Considering the grievous nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the periods of hospitalisation undergone by him, we are of the view that the ‘’attendant charges’’ needs to be enhanced. We accordingly, enhance the ‘’attendant charges’’ to Rs.1,00,000/-. The Claims Tribunal, having adopted multiplier method, awarded Rs.50,000/- towards ‘’loss of amenities’’, which in our view, is not sustainable.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, we modify the Award of the Claims Tribunal as follows:- Sl.No. Conventional Heads Amount Awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Amount Awarded by this Court in Rs.

Loss of permanent income 27,13,200/- 54,26,400/-

Transportation Charges 10,000/- 10,000/-

Nourishment charges 30,000/- 30,000/-

Attendant charges 30,000/- 1,00,000/-

Damages to clothing 6,000/- 6,000/-

Medical Bills 2,90,330/- 2,90,330/-

Pain and suffering 1,50,000/- 1,50,000/-

Loss of amenities 50,000/- ------ Total Rs.32,78,230/- 60,12,730/- Less 10% contributory negligence on the claimant 32,78,230 [-] 10% of 32,78,230 = 29,50,677/- --

The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified Award amount of Rs.60,12,730/- [Rupees Sixty Lakhs Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty 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 shall be entitled to the entire modified Award, without any deductions. 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, CMA.No.2144/2025 filed by the claimant is partly allowed and CMA.No.2615/2026, filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.

The Award of the Claims Tribunal dated 04.03.2025, made in MCOP.No.159/2022, is accordingly modified. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 16-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP To

1. The Special Sub Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Coimbatore.

2. The Section officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 2615 of 2026 AND CMA NO. 2144 OF 2025, CMP NO. 20016 OF 2026 16-09-2026