CMA/1317/2023 of The United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs B.Magimaidoss on 9 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The Insurance Company has filed the above two civil miscellaneous appeals challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Gudiyattam, dated 01.04.2021, in M.C.O.P.No.269 of

2012 and M.C.O.P.No.270 of 2012. Parties would be referred to by their ranking before the Tribunal.

2. The claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps are the victims of the accident which occurred on 26.05.2012 at about 8.00 a.m., while they were standing opposite to Subramani's House on Kondampalli-Gudiyattam Road, Pernambut. It is their case that when they were standing in the said place, a Maruti car bearing Registration No.KA-M-2291 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, had hit them, as a result of which, they sustained grievous injuries. Both of them were initially taken to Government Hospital, Pernambut and thereafter, they were referred to Government Hospital at Adukkamparai and then to Government Hospital at Chennai.

3. The petitioner in MCOP.No.269/2012 is a beedi labourer earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and the petitioner in MCOP.No.270/2012 is a student. The petitioners would contend that on account of the accident, they had completely become disabled and their future plunged into darkness. Therefore, they have filed the above claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each as compensation and that the respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

4. The first, third and fourth respondents are the owners of the offending vehicle and the second respondent is its insurer.

5. The second respondent-Insurance Company has filed its counter. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent had contended that the investigation would reveal that the accident as narrated had not taken place, and that the accident had occurred only on account of the negligence of the claimants who suddenly crossed the road without noticing the car bearing Registration No.KA-20-N-2291 coming on the road and had collided with the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, which is a violation of policy condition and therefore, the claimants/petitioners cannot seek compensation from the second respondent-Insurance company. The registration certificate of the vehicle stood in the name of the first respondent before the Tribunal, whereas the insurance policy stood in the name of Mehaboob Khan. The Insurance Company would further plead that the petitioners have not shown the third and fourth respondents at the time of filing the claim petition and therefore, the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. [Respondents 3 and 4 have been impleaded as respondents only in 2017 and petition was amended accordingly on 03.10.2018 and 12.09.2017 vide orders in I.A.No.441/2017 and I.A.No.574/2017 respectively]. The petitioners have also stated the registration number of the car wrongly as KA-M-2291 instead of KA-20-N-2291. Therefore, the second respondent sought for dismissal of both the claim petitions.

6. A joint trial was conducted and evidence was recorded in MCOP.No.269/2012. The claimant in MCOP.No.269/2012 was examined as P.W.1 and through him Ext.P1 to Ext.P6 were marked. The claimant in MCOP.No.270/2012 was examined as P.W.2 and through him, Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 were marked. The disability certificates of the petitioners were marked as Ext.P9 and Ext.P10. On the side of the second respondent, two witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and they had marked six documents viz., Ext.R1 to Ext.R6.

7. The Tribunal had held that the driver of the Maruti car was rash and negligent while driving the vehicle and this has resulted in the vehicle hitting the pedestrians, the claimants herein.

8. The Tribunal while analysing the case of the claimant in MCOP.No.269/2012, who was 28 years old and had no regular income, had fixed his income notionally at Rs.6,500/- per month, to which it had added 40% towards future prospects and arrived at monthly income of Rs.9,100/- (Rs.6,500 + 2,600/- = Rs.9,100/-) and applied a multiplier of 15 and taking into account the medical disability was assessed at 75% by the Medical Board, held that the accident had caused permanent disability and awarded a sum of Rs.13,92,300/- (Rs.9,100/- x 12 x 17 x 75/100) towards compensation for continuing permanent disability. To this, it also added Rs.15,000/- towards transportation charge, Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 2,00,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.75,000/- for loss of amenities, and compensated the claimant with the award sum of Rs.17,32,000/-

9. Insofar as MCOP.No.270/2012 is concerned, the claimant was a college student and whose disability was assessed at 5% and his age was determined as 18 years. The Tribunal had held that by reason of the accident, the claimant would not have gone to school/college for a period of one year and it had awarded a sum of Rs.78,000/- (Rs.6,500 x12) under the head of Loss of Education. To this, it had also considered the other heads of compensation and awarded Rs.5,000/- for transportation to hospital; Rs.5,000/- for extra nourishment; Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.1,000/- for damages to cloths and articles; Rs.25,000/- for pain and sufferings; Rs.5,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.15,000/- on the head of compensation for continuing permanent disability and had finally arrived at award sum of Rs.1,39,000/-.

10. Challenging these awards, the Insurance Company is before this Court with the above two C.M.As. However, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.269 of 2012 has filed Cross Objection No.47 of 2024, seeking enhancement of the award amount.

11. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is that the claimants have not proved the injuries and therefore, the award of compensation treating the same to be an injury by reason of a road accident cannot be sustained. Further, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.270/2012 was only a student and there is nothing to show that he has foregone an education for one year.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal had considered all aspects and had awarded reasonable award in MCOP.No.270/2012. However, insofar as claimant in MCOP.No.269/2012 is concerned, he would contend that on account of the accident the claimant in MCOP.No.269/2012 had lost his physical function and movement. He would also contend that the Medical Board has assessed his disability at 75%, but the Tribunal had failed to consider his loss of earning capacity as 100%. He also added that the Tribunal has awarded a paltry sums under the other heads of compensation and further nothing was awarded under the heads of future medical expenses, damages, mental agony, marital aspects etc., Hence, he has filed the cross objection seeking to enhance the award of the Tribunal.

13. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.

14. That the injuries had been sustained in a road traffic accident is evidenced by Ext.P3 and Ext.P7. These two documents are the copies of Accident Register issued by the Government Hospital, Pernambut. Ext.P3 relates to the Accident Register copy of the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.269/2012, A perusal of Ext.P3, accident register would show that the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.269/2012 had fracture of C5 and C7 and the injuries sustained by him has been termed as "grievous in nature". This is supported by Ext.P9, Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Vellore. The Medical Board had assessed the disability of the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.269/2012 at 75%.

15. The petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.270/2012 had also sustained injuries in the said accident, and the same is evidenced by Ext.P7 Accident Register copy and supported by Ext.P10, Medical Certificate, in which, his disability has been assessed at 5% and the injury sustained by him is termed as "simple in nature". 16.1 In the light of Ext.P1, FIR and Exts.P3 and P7, Accident Registers, the contention of the Insurance Company that the accident did not occur as alleged by the petitioners, cannot be countenanced. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.269/2012 is a coolie. No documents have been filed to prove the income and that the accident had occurred mid of the year 2012, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.6,500/- as notional income, which is correct. Ext.P.9, is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board in the year 2019. The Medical Board had examined the claimant nearly 7 years after the accident and has assessed his disability at 75%, which clearly show that the injuries are grievous in nature and the disability is a permanent one. Therefore, the award passed insofar as the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.269/2012 is concerned, has to be sustained, and accordingly, C.M.A.No.1317 of 2023 stands dismissed. 16.2 As regards the compensation in the case of claimant in M.C.O.P.No.270/2012 is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the claimant had not been attending his education for over a year. Therefore, the award sum of Rs.78,000/- (Rs.6,500/- x 12 months) awarded by the Tribunal on the head of "Loss of Education", is totally unjustified. Taking note of Ext.P7, which describe his injuries as "simple in nature" and Ext.P10, where his disability has been assessed at 5%, at best, the claimant would not have attended the classes for a period of one month, and not a year as determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, under this head, the claimant is entitled only to a sum of Rs.6,500/-. Accordingly, the award would stand reduced to that extent under the head of "loss of education" and in all other respect, the award in M.C.O.P.No.270/2012 remains unaltered. The details of the revised award in M.C.O.P.No.270/2012 is provided hereunder :

Sl. No. Heads Amount Awarded

by Tribunal (Rs.) Amount Awarded by this Court (Rs.)

1. Loss of Education 78,000.00 6,500.00

2. Transportation to Hospital 5,000.00 5,000.00

3. Extra Nourishment 5,000.00 5,000.00

4. Attendant Charges 5,000.00 5,000.00

5. Damages to clothes and articles 1,000.00 1,000.00

6. Pain and Suffering 25,000.00 25,000.00

7. Loss of Amenities 5,000.00 5,000.00

8. Compensation for continuing permanent disability 15,000.00 15,000.00 Total Compensation 1,39,000.00 67,500.00 According, the award of the Tribunal is modified from Rs.1,39,000/- to Rs.67,500/-.

16.3. Since the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.269 of 2012 stands confirmed, and does not warrants interference by this C ourt, the cross objection filed by the claimant is dismissed.

17. In the result, the C.M.A.No.1317 of 2023 & Cross Objection No.47 of 2024 stand dismissed. C.M.A.No.1348 of 2023 is partly allowed and the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the revised award amount of Rs.67,500/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) as compensation to the credit of MCOP.No.270/2012 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Gudiyattam, together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less any amount already deposited if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the appellant/Insurance Company has deposited excess amount than what is now ordered, the insurance company is granted liberty to withdraw the excess balance amount. On the other hand, if they have deposited less than the amount now awarded, they shall deposit the balance amount within the aforestated period. On such deposit, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.270/2012 / 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.1348 of 2023 is permitted to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition if any, is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 09-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DS

To:

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Subordinate Court Gudiyattam.

2. The Section Officer VR Section High Court, Madras.

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. DS CMA Nos. 1317 & 1348 of 2023 and CROS. OBJ No. 47 of 2024 and CMP No. 13146 of 2023 09-09-2026