CMA(MD)/1196/2012 of THE BRANCH MANAGER Vs AYYAPPAN on 2 November 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

The third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil, has filed this Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the award dated 25.11.2010 passed in M.C.O.P. No.170 of 2009. The claimant has also filed Cross Objection(M.D). No.3 of 2013 seeking enhancement of compensation, in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2009.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. On 18.04.2005 at about 9.00 p.m., the claimant was riding his two- wheeler bearing Reg No.TN-74-W-7027 on the Nagercoil–Thiruvananthapuram Road, near Villukkuri Bridge. At that time, the offending lorry bearing Registration No.KL-01-J-3400, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant's vehicle. Due to the impact, the claimant and his sister sustained injuries. A criminal case was registered by the Eraniel Police Station in Crime No.277 of 2005.

2.2. The claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2009 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the manner of the accident, negligence and the quantum of compensation. It was specifically contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the claimant and that there was no negligence on the part of the lorry driver.

2.3. In order to establish his claim, the claimant was examined as P.W.1

and P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P24 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.4,08,750/- on the following heads together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition: Sl.No. Heads Amount in Rs

Loss of Income 1,62,000/-

Pain and suffering 50,000/-

For partial and permanent disability 40,000/-

Transportation 3,000/-

Extra Nourishment 5,000/-

Medical Bills 1,08,750/-

Medical Expenses 40,000/- Total 4,08,750/-

3.2. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. The claimant has also filed Cros.Obj(MD).No.3 of 2013 seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had fixed negligence on the insured vehicle without sufficient evidence. It was further contended that the Tribunal had erroneously applied the multiplier method for the alleged 40% disability and, therefore, the award was liable to be set aside or substantially reduced.

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

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal had not awarded a reasonable amount and that the claimant was entitled to further enhancement. It was submitted that the claimant was working as an auto driver and, after the accident, he was unable to continue his occupation, impacting on his livelihood. It was further submitted that the claimant had been continuously undergoing treatment even after the accident and that the medical records established the seriousness of his injuries and complications. Therefore, enhancement of compensation was sought.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent and perused the materials available on records.

7. Points for Determination:

7.1. The following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing negligence on the driver of the offending lorry?

(ii) Whether the compensation of Rs.4,08,750/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?

8. Discussion on negligence:

8.1. P.W.1 is the injured claimant. He has specifically deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. His evidence is corroborated by Ex.P1 and the other documentary evidence, particularly Ex.P6.

8.2. A careful consideration of the evidence of P.W.1, coupled with Exs.P1 and P6, clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry bearing Registration No.KL-01-J-3400.

8.3. The appellant-Insurance Company has not adduced any contra evidence to disprove the evidence of the injured claimant or to establish that the accident occurred due to his negligence. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal fixing negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle.

9. Discussion on Quantum and Enhancement: 9.1 The claimant sustained serious injuries to his leg and other parts of the body. According to the claimant, even though the accident occurred in the year 2005, he has continued to undergo treatment and has not completely recovered. He had also undergone a skin-grafting procedure and still suffering from complications.

9.2. The claimant sought to contend that the injuries had resulted in 100% loss of earning capacity. This Court is not inclined to accept the said contention in its entirety. However, the nature and severity of the injuries cannot be ignored while determining the just compensation payable to the claimant.

9.3. The discharge summary and the other medical records further establish the prolonged nature of the treatment and the consequences of the injuries. The claimant was working as an auto driver. The injuries suffered by him, particularly the serious injury to his leg, would have substantially affected his ability to continue his avocation

and

earn

his

livelihood.

9.4. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in taking into consideration the permanent disability suffered by the claimant. However, considering the nature of the injuries, the evidence relating to the continuing

treatment, the future medical expenses and the impact of the disability upon his earning capacity, this Court is of the view that the compensation requires appropriate enhancement.

9.5. At the same time, the claimant has not established that the injuries resulted in 100% functional disability or total loss of earning capacity. Therefore, the claim for compensation on the basis of 100% loss of earning capacity cannot be accepted in toto. The disability and loss of earning capacity have to be assessed with reference to the nature of the injuries, the occupation of the claimant and the medical evidence available on record.

9.6. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires reconsideration and enhancement to ensure that the claimant receives just compensation for the injuries, permanent disability, loss of earning capacity and future medical expenses suffered by him.

9.7. Ex.P8 contains the photographs of the injured claimant. On perusal of the photographs, it is evident that the claimant had suffered a serious and injury to his leg. Ex.P24, the medical certificate issued by the doctor, also indicates that the claimant requires continued future medical treatment and that an approximate sum of Rs.50,000/- would be required towards such future treatment.

10. Conclusion:

10.1. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed and the claimant's cross objection is liable to be allowed in part, subject to the re-assessment of the compensation under the appropriate heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Re-quantifed by this Court Status

Loss of Income 1,62,000/- 1,62,000/- Confirmed

Pain and sufferings 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed

For partial and permanent disability 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed

Transportation 3,000/- 3,000/- Confirmed

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

Medical Bills 1,08,750/- 1,08,750/- Confirmed

Medical Expenses 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed

Future Medical Expenses ---- 50,000/- Awarded Total 4,08,750/- 4,58,750/- Enhanced

11. Result:

11.1. In the result, C.M.A.(MD).No.1196 of 2012 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. The Cross Objection(MD).No.3 of 2013 filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified to the extent indicated above and the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

11.2. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, after giving credit to the amount already deposited, together with accrued interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

11.3. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sbn To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil.

2. The Section Officer,

V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. sbn CMA(MD) No. 1196 of 2012 02-11-2026