CMA(MD)/453/2019 of S.AKILANDESWARI Vs THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The claimant in M.C.O.P. No.1585 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, has filed the present C.M.A.(MD).No.453 of 2019, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1585 of 2014, dated 24.01.2019.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. According to the claimant, she was travelling as a passenger in the Omni bus bearing Registration No.TN-09-BT-1359, which was insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company. The bus was proceeding from Chennai towards Tiruchirappalli. When it was nearing Siruganur Village, on 05.07.2014 at about

05.00 a.m. the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a lorry which had been parked on the left side of the road. It was alleged that the parked lorry had not displayed proper warning or indication.

2.2. In the said accident, the claimant and other passengers sustained injuries. The claimant sustained, in particular, fractures to the right femur and left femur, besides other injuries all over the body. She was admitted in the hospital and underwent treatment from 05.07.2014 to 15.07.2014 and underwent surgery. According to her, she incurred substantial medical expenses and, owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, she was unable to continue her employment.

2.3. The claimant was employed as an HR Manager/Marketing Analyst in Zoho Corporation Limited, Chennai, and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. She contended that, owing to the injuries, she was compelled to resign her employment and thereby suffered loss of earning capacity. She therefore filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-.

2.4. The Insurance Company resisted the claim disputing the manner of the accident and the allegation that the accident was caused due to the negligent parking of the lorry without proper indication. The quantum of compensation was also disputed. It was specifically contended that there was no proof of actual loss

of income.

2.5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and the doctor as P.W.2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked on the side of the claimant. The Court Witness was also examined as CW1 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the entire evidence, the Tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the insured bus and awarded a sum of Rs.5,81,543/- as compensation. Sl. No. Heads Awarded Amount (in Rs.)

Loss of income 2,55,000/-

Disability 1,05,000/-

Pain and Suffering 1,00,000/-

Extra nourishment 15,000/-

Damages 2,000/-

Transport expenses 32,543/-

Past Medical Expenses 47,000/-

Future Medical Expenses 25,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.5,81,543/-

3.2. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

4. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant :

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the claimant had sustained fractures to both the right and left femur and had undergone surgery. Owing to the resultant disability, she was unable to continue her employment and was compelled to resign. It was therefore contended that the Tribunal ought to have properly assessed the functional loss of earning capacity by applying the multiplier method.

4.2. Reliance was placed upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar”, Reported in 2011, 1 SCC 343, particularly with regard to the distinction between physical disability and functional loss of earning capacity.

4.3. It was further submitted that the claimant was a highly qualified employee working in a managerial position and that the injuries to both femurs would necessarily affect her ability to perform her avocation. It was also contended

that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities.

5. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company :

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that there was no satisfactory evidence to establish that the claimant was compelled to resign her employment on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. It was pointed out that, after the accident, she was permitted by her employer to continue working and that she continued in employment for about three months. Thereafter, she resigned only in the year 2016.

5.2. It was further submitted that the claimant subsequently married and was residing with her husband in Canada and that there was no concrete evidence to establish that her resignation was directly attributable to the disability suffered in the accident. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, no further enhancement was warranted.

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

7. Discussion and Findings:

7.1. The medical records, particularly Exs.P2 to P4, establish that the claimant sustained fractures to both the right and left femur. She underwent surgical treatment for the said injuries. The nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone by her are not seriously in dispute. The more important question is the extent to which the injuries affected her earning capacity. The claimant was employed in a managerial position after completing her higher studies. Therefore, the functional effect of injuries to both femurs has to be considered having regard to the nature of her employment.

7.2. The claimant has stated that, owing to the injuries, she was unable to continue her employment and ultimately resigned. However, the evidence also discloses that after the accident she continued in employment for a period of about three months, with the employer making arrangements to facilitate her work. She ultimately resigned only in the year 2016.

7.3. There is no concrete or convincing evidence establishing that she was compelled to resign solely because of the disability arising from the accident. The mere fact that she subsequently resigned from employment cannot, by itself, establish 100% loss of earning capacity. At the same time, the claimant's case cannot be completely rejected. The injuries to both femurs are significant, and the

functional consequences of such injuries have to be considered having regard to the nature of her employment. A person employed in a managerial position may have to sit, stand, move within the workplace and undertake various work-related activities. The residual effects of fractures to both femurs can therefore have some impact upon her earning capacity.

7.4. In this context, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, Reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, is relevant. The percentage of physical disability cannot be mechanically equated with the percentage of loss of earning capacity. The Court must assess the functional impact of the disability with reference to the claimant's particular avocation. The claimant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning loss of earning capacity in the case of a professional. However, in the case relied upon by the claimant, the evidence established that the injured person was completely incapacitated from continuing his particular avocation. The same degree of functional incapacity has not been established in the present case.

7.5. Therefore, while this Court is unable to accept the claimant's case of 100% loss of earning capacity, the functional consequences of the injuries cannot be ignored altogether. Having regard to the nature of the injuries, the claimant's

avocation, her employment in a managerial position and the medical evidence available on record, this Court considers it appropriate to assess the functional loss of earning capacity at 20%.

7.6. The monthly income of Rs.42,500/- adopted by the Tribunal has not been seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the same is retained for the purpose of recalculating the loss of earning capacity. Applying the multiplier method, the compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity is recalculated as follows: Rs.42,500 × 18 × 20% = Rs.1,53,000/-

7.7. This Court declines to accept the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that awarding compensation under both head of “loss of earning capacity” and “Permanent disability” is amount to overlapping in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Suresh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2012) 12 SCC 274.

7.8. The claimant had sustained fractures to both femurs and undergone surgical treatment. Considering the nature of the injuries and the resultant continuing discomfort, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of

loss of amenities. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. The other amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the respective heads are not shown to be either excessive or inadequate so as to warrant interference, except to the extent indicated above.

8. Conclusion:

8.1. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is re-determined as follows:- Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Re-quantified amount by this Court (in Rs.) Status

Loss of income during treatment period of 6 months (Rs.42,500/- X

2,55,000/- 2,55,000/- Confirmed

Loss of earning capacity -------- 1,53,000/- Awarded

Disability 1,05,000/- 1,05,000/- Confirmed

Pain and 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Confirmed

Suffering

Extra nourishment 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed

Damages 2,000/- 2,000/- Confirmed

Transport expenses 32,543/- 32,543/- Confirmed

Past Medical Expenses 47,000/- 47,000/- Confirmed

Future Medical Expenses 25,000/- 25,000/- Confirmed

Loss of amenities --------- 1,00,000/- Awarded Total Compensation Awarded Rs.5,81,543/- Rs.8,34,543/- Enhanced

8. Result:

8.1. In the result, C.M.A.(MD).No.453 of 2019 is partly allowed.

8.2. The award dated 24.01.2019 in M.C.O.P. No.1585 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirappalli is enhanced from Rs.5,81,543/- to Rs.8,34,543/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

8.3. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount of Rs.8,34,543/-, after giving credit to the amount already awarded and deposited, if any, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8.4. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the enhanced amount, together with accrued interest and costs, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. 02.11.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No AKM To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Judge,

Trichirappalli

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

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. AKM