CMA(MD)/72/2021 of MAJEL JUDE Vs M/S.OM SAKTHI STEELS on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.20 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, has filed the present C.M.A.(MD).No.72 of 2021 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by virtue of award dated 04.10.2019.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. According to the claimant, on 15.08.2016, at about 5.00 p.m., while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-74-U-3519 along the Kumarapuram–Thuckalay Main Road, the insured vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-04-AE-2541 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries and underwent treatment in various hospitals for several days.

2.2. The claimant was engaged in the business of selling fish. According to him, the injuries sustained in the accident affected his ability to continue his avocation. Therefore, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

2.3. The insurance company resisted the claim by disputing the manner of the accident, the alleged negligence and the quantum of compensation claimed.

2.4. On the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P20 were marked.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the insured vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.5,52,364/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Sl.No. Heads Amounts in Rs.

Loss of earning for the period of treatment 10,000/-

Transport Expenses 10,000/-

Extra Nourishment 15,000/-

Pains and Sufferings 25,000/-

Medical Expenses 2,92,364/-

Sock and Mental Agony 20,000/-

Permanent Disability (60%) 1,80,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.5,52,364/-

3.2. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

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

4.1. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and was earning his livelihood

as a fish vendor. Due to the accident, he sustained injuries to his right leg, ribs and right shoulder and underwent treatment as an inpatient for approximately 21 days. He continues to undergo treatment for the consequences of the injuries.

4.2. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the nature and gravity of the injuries, the period of hospitalisation and the disability assessed at 60% under Ex.P18. The Tribunal awarded inadequate compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant charges and medical expenses. It was also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the loss of earning capacity by applying the multiplier method, despite the disability sustained by the claimant. The learned counsel, therefore, sought enhancement of compensation under the relevant heads.

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

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the claimant had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the disability had resulted in a loss of earning capacity or rendered him incapable of continuing his avocation as a fish vendor. In the absence of satisfactory evidence regarding functional disability and its impact on his earnings, the Tribunal was justified in declining to adopt the multiplier method. It was further submitted that the compensation awarded under the other heads was

reasonable, having regard to the nature of the injuries, and that no grounds had been made out for interference with the award.

6. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

7. Point for Determination:

7.1. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and, if so, to what extent?

8. Discussion and Findings:

8.1. P.W.1, the injured claimant, deposed that he sustained injuries to his right leg, rib region and right shoulder in the accident. The evidence on record further indicates that he underwent inpatient treatment for approximately 21 days and that his permanent disability was assessed at 60%, as evidenced by Ex.P18.

8.2. Having regard to the nature of the injuries, the period of hospitalisation and the treatment undergone by the claimant, the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is inadequate. The claimant would necessarily have undergone considerable pain and discomfort during the course of treatment and recovery. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation under this head to Rs.1,00,000/-.

8.3. As regards loss of amenities, the nature of the injuries and the disability sustained by the claimant would have affected his normal activities

and enjoyment of life. Therefore, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under this head.

8.4. Similarly, considering the period of inpatient treatment and the assistance reasonably required by the claimant during his hospitalisation and recovery, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges.

8.5. Insofar as permanent disability is concerned, the disability certificate, Ex.P18, assesses the claimant's disability at 60%. Having regard to the date of the accident, namely 15.08.2016, and the applicable principles governing compensation for permanent disability, this Court considers it appropriate to award compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per percentage of disability. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- is awarded towards permanent disability.

8.6. However, the claim for compensation by adopting the multiplier method towards loss of future earning capacity requires a separate assessment. The percentage of medical disability cannot automatically be equated with the percentage of functional disability. In the present case, the claimant was engaged in fish business, and the evidence must establish the extent to which the disability affects his ability to carry on that avocation and earn his livelihood. In the absence of sufficient evidence establishing the extent of such functional loss, the multiplier method cannot be adopted merely on the basis of the disability percentage. The award under the head of permanent disability, therefore, shall be considered independently of any claim for loss of future earning capacity. The award is redetermined as follows:-

Sl. No Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Re-quantified amount by this Court (Rs.) Status

Loss of earning for the period of treatment 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed

Transport Expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed

Extra Nourishment 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed

Pains and Sufferings 25,000/- 1,00,000/- Enhanced

Medical Expenses 2,92,364/- 2,92,364/- Confirmed

Sock and Mental Agony 20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed

Permanent Disability 1,80,000/- 3,60,000/- Enhanced

Loss of Amenities ---- 25,000/- Awarded

Attendant Charges ---- 25,000/- Awarded Total 5,52,364/- 8,57,364/- Enhanced

8.7. Considering the nature of the injuries, the period of treatment and the consequences of the disability, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires modification under the aforesaid heads.

9. Result:

9.1. In the result, this C.M.A.(MD).No.72 of 2021 is partly allowed.

9.2. The award dated 04.10.2019 in M.C.O.P.No.20 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Prinicipal Sub Court, Tirunelveli is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.5,52,364/- to Rs.8,57,364/-

9.3. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.Rs.8,57,364/-, together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting any amount already deposited, as applicable.

9.4. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation, together with the proportionate interest and costs, if any, in accordance with law.

9.5. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No aas To

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

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

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. aas CMA(MD) No. 72 of 2021 AND CMP(MD) No. 4523 of 2024 02-10-2026