CMA/2817/2023 of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs R. SURESHKUMAR on 16 September 2026

Common Judgment

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

The Insurance Company has filed CMA.No.2817/2023, challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2023, made in MCOP.No.94/2020, by the learned Special Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode.

The claimant has filed Cross Objection in Cross.Obj.No.101/2023, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, with interest at 18% per annum.

Since both the appeal and the Cross Objection arise out of the same judgment and decree, both are taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment.

The parties will be referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

The summary of facts are as follows:- On 18.12.2017, when the claimant was riding his motorcycle, bearing Regn.No.TN-37-AS-5347, on the Chinthamanipudhur bypass road and was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road, a car bearing Regn.No.TN-09-BR-3912, driven by the 1st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the claimant's motorcycle, due to which the claimant lost control and dashed against another motorcycle, fell on the ground and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was aged 41 years at the time of the accident and as a Mill worker and a Real Estate broker, was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Due to the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, he continued to be unconscious and therefore, the claim petition was filed by his wife and next friend, on his behalf, claiming a sum of Rs.2 Crores as compensation.

Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the car remained exparte before the Claims Tribunal and the 3rd respondent, insurer of the car, contested the case. The 4th respondent is the Local Branch Office of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent filed a counter denying the manner of the accident, negligence and quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined three witnesses and marked 30 documents as Exs.P1 to P30. The respondents examined two witnesses, however, did not mark any document. The documents Exs.X1 to X3 were marked through the witnesses and Ex.C1-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, was marked on the side of the Court.

The Claims Tribunal, after framing necessary issues and on the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, found that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the car driver, the 1st respondent and that, there was no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. On the issue of liability, the Claims Tribunal found that there was a valid subsisting policy under Ex.P5 for the car, and therefore, mulcted the liability on the respondents 3 and 4, the insurer of the car. On the quantum of compensation, the Claims Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, as evidenced by Ex.P19 and the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board under Ex.C1, found that there was 100% functional disability and hence, adopted the multiplier method. The Claims Tribunal, fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.11,250/- and after following the legal principles, awarded a total compensation of Rs.79,75,490/- along with 7.5% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company filed the above Appeal and not satisfied with the quantum awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the claimant filed the Cross Objection.

The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4/Insurance Company submitted that claimant contributed to the accident and therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have fixed the negligence only against the

1st respondent. The learned counsel further contended that the Award of the Claims Tribunal was exorbitant, excessive and speculative and therefore, the same required to be interfered, more so, since the overall quantum was not fixed in accordance with the settled legal principles of law.

The learned counsel for the claimant supported the judgment of the Claims Tribunal on the issue of negligence. The learned counsel further submitted that considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Award was not fair and reasonable and therefore, it required interference.

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

On the issue of negligence, the Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the Rough Sketch [Ex.P3], the FIR [Ex.P1] and Ex.P17 – Copy of the status of the FIR in Crime No.1125/2017, found that the negligence of the car driver resulted in the accident. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.P13, and Ex.P14, the Lok Adalat Awards dated 12.12.2020, settling the claims, in MCOP.No.482/2018 and 486/2018, arising out of the same accident, held that since the respondents 3 and 4 had admitted the negligence of the car driver, in the said MCOPs, they could not challenge negligence in the present MCOP. From the aforesaid, we find that the findings of the Claims Tribunal on the issue of negligence, is correct and based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

On the issue of quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Award of the Claims Tribunal was exorbitant and proper principles of law were not followed while computing the compensation. The learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand submitted that considering the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Award was meagre and prayed for enhancement.

As per the Discharge Summary [Ex.P19], the injured claimant sustained the following injuries:- (a) Left fronto temporo parietal decompressive craniotomy.

(b) Intra medullary inter locking nail left tibia with medical malleolus screw fixation.

(c) Open reduction internal fixation with recon plate for pelvic diastasis.

(d) Inter costal drainage for haemothorax.

(e) Bilateral tendoachilles lengthening.

(f) Intra articular injection both shoulder.

The claimant was examined by the Medical Board, at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Erode, and Ex.C1-Disability Certificate was issued, certifying that the claimant had suffered 100% permanent disability. The records reveal that the claimant due to the injuries suffered in the accident, is totally bedridden. Therefore, the assessment of functional disability at 100% by the Claims Tribunal, cannot be faulted and so also the adoption of the multiplier method. The Claims Tribunal, in the absence of any documentary evidence on record, fixed the notional income at Rs.9,000/- considering that the claimant worked as a labourer in M/s.SSM Mills Private Limited. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the claimant's age of 41 years, added 25% of his income towards future prospects and fixed the notional income at Rs.11,250/-. Thereafter, the Claims Tribunal, considering the nature of the injuries and the permanent disability suffered by the claimant, awarded total compensation of Rs.79,75,490/-. We find that due to the grievous injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident, he has been rendered into a vegetative state, resulting in profound and permanent impairment of his faculties and leaving him dependent on others. In view of the Disability Certificate [Ex.C1] issued by the Medical Board, certifying the permanent disability at 100%, we are not inclined to accept the objections of the Insurance Company to the quantum fixed by the Claims Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the income fixed at Rs.9,000/- was on the lower side and that the Claims Tribunal ought to have fixed higher income, considering that the claimant was not only

working as a labourer in a Mill, but also doing real estate brokerage. We are afraid we are not able to countenance the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant since we find that absolutely no documentary evidence was filed to prove the salary of the claimant as a labourer and his income from the real estate brokerage business. We are therefore of the view that the income fixed by the Claims Tribunal is fair, just and reasonable. We find that the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.16,80,000/-, Rs.7,56,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- towards future attendant charges, future physiotherapy charges and for pain and sufferings, respectively and therefore, we are of the view that the compensation awarded is fair, just and reasonable and further enhancement is not necessary. We therefore, find no merit in the Cross Objection also. We are of the view that the total compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable and therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the Cross Objection.

Accordingly, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection are dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal dated 01.06.2023, made in M.C.O.P.No. 94 of 2020, is confirmed.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal, viz., Rs.79,75,490/- [Rupees Seventy Nine Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred Ninety only] 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 common judgment, if not already deposited. The claimant, on such deposit by the Insurance Company, shall be entitled to withdraw the same with the accrued interest, by filing appropriate application before the Claims Tribunal. 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 District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Erode.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, No.6/341-C, Post Office Street, Avinasi Tiruppur District - 641

654.

3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Mettur Road, Erode - 638 011.

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

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 2817 of 2023 AND CMP NO. 26321 OF 2023, CROS.OBJ NO. 101 OF 2023 16-09-2026