CMA(MD)/538/2024 of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Alagammal on 2 November 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

The second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.131 of 2017, namely, the Insurance Company, has filed C.M.A.(MD).No.538 of 2024 challenging the award dated 02.08.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.131 of 2017 has filed C.M.A. (MD).No.1212 of 2022 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal. Since both appeals arise out of the same award, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. The claimant, aged about 50 years, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest. According to her, on 04.05.2016 at about 9.30 p.m., while she was standing along with her cousin, namely, Palanisamy at the extreme right side of the road near Pallapatty Bus Stop on the Tiruchirappalli– Madurai Main Road, the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-63-AK-4203, insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, was ridden in a rash and negligent manner and hit her. She sustained multiple injuries, including fracture of the right leg, right ankle and hip region, besides other injuries all over the body.

2.2. The claimant was initially admitted in the Government Hospital, Thuvarankurichi, and thereafter took treatment at Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, as an inpatient for more than three months. An FIR was registered against the rider of the two-wheeler.

2.3. The Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the manner of the accident, the negligence attributed to the rider of the two-wheeler and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant.

2.4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and the documents Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. The disability certificate was marked as Ex.C1 and the medical records relating to her treatment were marked as Exs.X1 to X3. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal fixed the negligence on the rider of the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-63-AK-4203 and awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,83,750/- on the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount in Rs

Loss of earning Power and disability 8,31,600/-

Future Prospects including loss of amenities 3,32,462/-

Medical Expenses 1,60,489/-

Pain and sufferings 1,50,000/-

Transport Expenses 20,000/-

Attender Charges 20,000/-

Loss of income during the treatment period 36,000/-

Extra Nourishment 30,000/-

Clothes and Articles 3,000/- Total 15,83,729/- Rounded Off 15,83,750/-

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

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously applied the multiplier method without there being sufficient evidence to establish loss of earning capacity. It was further contended that a sum of Rs.3,32,640/- had been awarded under the heading “future prospects/loss of amenities”, which, according to the learned counsel, was not legally sustainable.

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

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the claimant had sustained multiple serious injuries and had undergone several surgeries. She was brought before the Tribunal in a wheelchair and was unable to move without the assistance of another person. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the attendant charges were required to be assessed by applying the multiplier method. Reliance was placed upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, including in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, and in the case of Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166. It was further submitted that no amount had been awarded towards future medical expenses and, therefore, the compensation required enhancement.

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

7. Discussion on negligence:

7.1. As regards negligence, P.W.1, being the injured claimant, has clearly deposed regarding the manner of the accident and the negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler. The FIR was also registered against the rider. There is no contra oral or documentary evidence adduced by the Insurance Company to discredit the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal fixing negligence on the rider of the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-63-AK-4203 does not warrant interference.

7.2. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal on negligence is hereby confirmed.

8. Discussion on Quantum:-

8.1. The claimant has specifically deposed that she sustained serious injuries to her right leg, right hip and ankle and suffered multiple fractures and other injuries.

She had undergone several surgeries and remained as an inpatient in a private hospital for more than three months.

8.2. The Tribunal has recorded in paragraph 17 of the award that the claimant was brought before the Tribunal in a wheelchair and that she was not even in a position to stand without assistance. The nature of the injuries, the prolonged treatment and the continuing difficulty in mobility establish that the claimant requires assistance for her day-to-day activities. As per Ex.C1/ disability certificate, she is having 70% disability.

8.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised that, in cases where an injured claimant requires continuing assistance, attendant charges may appropriately be assessed by adopting the multiplier method. In the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Supreme Court explained that the multiplier method is not confined to loss of earning capacity and may also be applied for determining attendant charges in an appropriate case.

8.4. The same principle has been subsequently referred to in relation to cases involving permanent and continuing need for assistance.

8.5. In the present case, considering the evidence regarding the nature of the injuries and the claimant's inability to move without assistance, this Court is of the view that the attendant charges require separate consideration.

8.6. Accordingly, the attendant charges are fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month. Taking the period of 30 years, the attendant charges are calculated as follows: Rs.2,000 × 12 × 30 = Rs.7,20,000/-

8.7. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,32,640/- under the heading “future prospects/loss of amenities”. In view of the separate assessment of attendant charges on the multiplier basis, the said amount cannot be retained under the said composite heading. Accordingly, the award of Rs.3,32,640/- under that heading is hereby set aside.

8.8. However, considering the nature of the injuries, the multiple surgeries undergone by the claimant, the prolonged treatment and the consequent restriction in her day-to-day activities, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.

9. Future Medical Expenses

9.1. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future medical expenses. Considering the nature of the injuries, the surgeries already undergone and the continuing medical consequences, this Court is of the view that a reasonable amount is required to be awarded under this head.

9.2. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.75,000/- is hereby awarded towards future medical expenses.

10. Modified Compensation

10.1. Thus, while the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heading “future prospects/loss of amenities” to the extent of Rs.3,32,640/- is set aside and the compensation of the following amounts have been re-determined as follows: Sl.No . Heads Award of Tribunal Award of this Court Status

Loss of earning Power and disability 8,31,600/- 8,31,600/- Confirmed

Future

Prospects including loss of amenities 3,32,640/- --- Set aside

Medical Expenses 1,60,489/- 1,60,489/- Confirmed

Pain and sufferings 1,50,000/- 1,50,000/- Confirmed

Transport Expenses 20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed

Attender Charges 20,000/- 7,20,000/- Enhanced

Loss of income during the treatment period 36,000/- 36,000/- Confirmed

Extra Nourishment 30,000/- 30,000/- Confirmed

Clothes and Articles 3,000/- 3,000/- Confirmed

Loss of amenities ---- 50,000/- Awarded

Future medical ---- 75,000/- Awarded

expenses Total 15,83,750/- 20,76,089/- Enhanced

10.2. The total compensation is accordingly modified, subject to the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal remaining undisturbed.

11. Result

11.1. In the result, C.M.A.(MD).No.538 of 2024 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and C.M.A.(MD).No.1212 of 2022 filed by the claimant is partly allowed.

11.2. The finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence is hereby confirmed. The award of Rs.3,32,640/- under the composite head of “future prospects/loss of amenities” is set aside. The claimant is awarded Rs.7,20,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.75,000/- towards future medical expenses, in addition to the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal.

11.3. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.c.O.P.No.131 of 017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated 02.02.2021 is hereby modified, and enhanced the compensation from Rs.15,83,750/- to Rs.20,76,089/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of

deposit.

11.4. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, together with the accrued interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the same has not already been deposited.

11.5. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw their respective amount in accordance with the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed. 02-11-2026 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No sbn To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum III Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.

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

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN J. sbn CMA(MD) No. 538 of 2024 and CMA(MD) No.1212 OF 2022 02-11-2026