CMA(MD)/10/2024 of The Branch Manager Vs Siva on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The second respondent/Insurance Company in M.C.O.P. No.109 of 2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, Dindigul, has filed the present C.M.A. No.10 of 2024, challenging the findings on negligence, liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by judgment dated 12.06.2023.

2. Facts of the Case:

2.1. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.109 of 2021 filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.23,10,348/-, stating that he was aged about 29 years and was working as an electrician, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On 13.11.2020 at about 7.00 p.m., while he was riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-57-

YS-7745 on the Sempatti–Nilakottai Main Road, keeping to the extreme left side of the road, the Tata Ace lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59-AU-4330, insured with the appellant Insurance Company, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and, while taking a turn, hit the two-wheeler. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. He was admitted and treated in various hospitals. A criminal case was also registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

2.2. The Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the manner of the accident and contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself. It was specifically pleaded that the claimant had failed to exercise due care while proceeding on the road and that the driver of the insured vehicle was not responsible for the accident. It was therefore contended that, in any event, contributory negligence had to be attributed to the claimant.

2.3. Before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on the side of the claimant and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. Medical records, including medical bills and discharge summaries, were also marked through the concerned witnesses under Ex.X1, X2 and X3. A disability certificate was marked as Ex.C1. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the insured vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.25,67,053/- on the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amounts in Rs.

For Future loss of Income and disability 15,70,800/-

Medical Expenses 8,86,253/-

Transportation Charges 10,000/-

Extra Nourishment 10,000/-

Damages to Clothing and Articles 5,000/-

Pain and Sufferings 50,000/-

Attender Charges 5,000/-

Loss of Amenities 30,000/- Total 25,67,053/-

3.2. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company

contended that the manner of the accident, as projected by the claimant, would disclose contributory negligence on his part. According to the learned counsel, the claimant had lost sight of of the insured vehicle while it was taking a turn and had thereby contributed to the occurrence. It was further contended that the claimant had given a different version regarding the manner of the accident and, therefore, a part of the negligence ought to have been attributed to him.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that there was no evidence whatsoever to establish contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The FIR, the other documents produced before the Tribunal and the evidence of the injured claimant were consistent attributing negligence to the driver of the insured vehicle. It was therefore contended that the Tribunal had rightly fixed the entire negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions and the materials available on record.

7. Discussion on negligence:

7.1. The claimant himself was examined as a witness and has spoken about the manner of the accident. The FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and the final report was also filed against him. More importantly, the

Insurance Company, which specifically pleaded contributory negligence, has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the said plea.

7.2. A plea of contributory negligence cannot be accepted merely on the basis of an assertion in the counter or on the basis of conjecture. There must be some material on record to establish that the claimant, by his own negligence, contributed to the occurrence of the accident. In the present case, no such material has been brought on record by the appellant. Therefore, there are no sufficient grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal fixing negligence on the driver of the insured vehicle.

8. Functional Disability and Multiplier Method:

8.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier method for assessing the compensation towards disability. According to the appellant, the percentage of physical disability could not automatically be treated as functional disability resulting in proportionate loss of earning capacity.

8.2. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant, however, submitted that the claimant was working as an electrician and that he had sustained serious injuries requiring treatment in various hospitals for a considerable period. A disability certificate assessing his disability at 55% had also been produced. The competent

Medical Board had assessed and gave certificate Having regard to the nature of his avocation and the nature of the injuries sustained, the disability had affected his earning capacity. It was therefore contended that the Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier method.

8.3. The principles governing assessment of compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning capacity have been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. The percentage of permanent physical disability is not, by itself, determinative of the percentage of loss of earning capacity. The nature of the claimant's avocation, the nature of the disability and its impact upon his ability to continue his particular work are relevant considerations.

8.4. In the present case, the claimant was aged about 29 years and was working as an electrician. The evidence on record shows that he sustained multiple injuries and underwent treatment in various hospitals. A disability certificate assessing the disability at 55% was also produced. Considering the nature of the claimant's avocation and the evidence relating to the injuries and disability, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier method for assessing the loss of earning capacity. The finding of the Tribunal is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 and in the case of Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Limited

reported in 2023 (3) SCC 439.

8.5. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.14,000/- and applied the multiplier of 17, having regard to the age of the claimant. On consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the assessment made by the Tribunal under this head.

9. Discussion on Medical Expenses

9.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also questioned the award towards medical expenses. The claimant had taken treatment in various hospitals, including hospitals at Dindigul and Madurai, and had also undergone physiotherapy treatment at Madurai Electro Care. The medical bills and other supporting records were produced before the Tribunal. Upon consideration of the said documents, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,86,250/- towards medical expenses.

9.2. The medical records and bills produced before the Tribunal support the treatment undergone by the claimant. No specific material has been produced by the Insurance Company to demonstrate that the said medical expenses were either unrelated to the injuries sustained in the accident or otherwise not payable. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the amount awarded towards medical expenses.

9.3. On an overall consideration of the evidence, this Court finds that the appellant has not made out any ground warranting interference with the findings of the Tribunal either with regard to negligence, functional disability, application of the multiplier method or medical expenses.

10. Result:

10.1. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.109 of 2021, dated 12.06.2023, is confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, together with accrued interest and costs, if not already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed. 02-11-2026 To

1. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal /Special Subordinate Judge, Dindigul

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J, sbn C.M.A.(MD).No.10 of 2024 02.11.2026