The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Naveen — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

Partly allowed¶105

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Naveen

Madras HC19 Feb 2025CMA/2814/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross appeals CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024 (with connected CMP No.22845 of 2024), High Court of Judicature at Madras, common judgment delivered 19/02/2025 (neutral citation 2025:MHC:475), bench J.Nisha Banu and R.Sakthivel, JJ. Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Salem Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub - Court No.II) Award of July 28, 2023 in M.C.O.P. No.272 of 2022, arising from the May 28, 2021 Thuraiyur road accident in which autorickshaw TN-48-AR6439 (driver/owner Selvam, insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) dashed the claimant Naveen's motorcycle TN-48-AP-6827 causing traumatic paraplegia and 100% functional disability. Tribunal jurisdiction upheld pursuant to Section 166(2) MV Act on Ex-P.15 Aadhaar evidence; rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw driver affirmed on FIR, charge sheet and uncontroverted P.W.1 testimony; insurer held liable. Quantum recomputation: notional monthly income raised from Tribunal's Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- with 40% future prospects and multiplier 18 per National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, giving loss of earning power Rs.45,36,000/-; attender charges Rs.9,72,000/- by multiplier method per Divya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 (1) TN MAC 30 (SC); pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and future medical expenses at Rs.2,00,000/- each; transportation Rs.50,000/- and extra nutrition Rs.50,000/-; medical expenses Rs.5,11,201/- and damages to clothes Rs.1,000/- retained. Aggregate compensation enhanced from Rs.37,56,201/- to Rs.69,20,201/- with 7.5% per annum interest on Rs.67,20,201/- from date of petition till deposit; insurer directed to deposit within eight weeks. Outcome: insurer's appeal dismissed; claimant's enhancement appeal partly allowed; no costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

CMA.No.2814 of 2024 (insurer) dismissed; CMA.No.2320 of 2024 (claimant) partly allowed — compensation enhanced from Rs.37,56,201/- to Rs.69,20,201/-; insurer directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest at 7.5% p.a. on Rs.67,20,201/- from date of petition till deposit within eight weeks (Rs.2,00,000/- future medical expenses interest-free); connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs; deficit court fee, if any, by petitioner within four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No.II), Salem had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, the insurer contending the petitioner resided outside its jurisdiction. +2 more

Court's answer

On the strength of Ex-P.15 Aadhaar Card showing the petitioner's residence, the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; this Court concurs with the Tribunal and rejects the insurer's preliminary objections.

Ratio / Principle

The finding that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent act of the first respondent (based on the FIR, charge sheet and uncontroverted P.W.1 evidence) is affirmed; this Court finds no reason to interfere.

Key takeaways

Since the first respondent's vehicle was insured with the second respondent at the time of the accident, the second respondent/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.ratio¶74
Notional monthly income revised upward from Rs.10,000/- (taken by the Tribunal) to at least Rs.15,000/- per month, the Diploma-holder claimant (Ex-P.18 apprentice stipend Rs.12,500/-) having improved job prospects after apprenticeship; applying 40% future prospects and multiplier of 18 per Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, loss of earning power is fixed at Rs.45,36,000/- (Rs.21,000 x 12 x 18).ratio¶79

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Division Bench of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice J.Nisha Banu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Sakthivel (judgment headed by R.Sakthivel, J.) — common judgment dated 19/02/2025 (reserved 02/12/2024) in cross civil miscellaneous appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated July 28, 2023 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub - Court No.II), Salem in M.C.O.P. No.272 of 2022. The claimant, a 21-year-old Diploma holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering then earning Rs.12,500/- as an apprentice stipend, suffered head and spine injuries resulting in traumatic paraplegia and loss of bladder control (100% functional disability) when an autorickshaw suddenly turned right and dashed against his motorcycle on May 28, 2021. Held: (i) the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, residence being evidenced by Ex-P.15 Aadhaar Card, in view of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — the insurer's preliminary objections were rejected; (ii) the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's driver, as established by the FIR, the charge sheet and uncontroverted P.W.1 evidence, and since the vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the insurer is liable to pay compensation; (iii) notional monthly income revised from Rs.10,000/- to at least Rs.15,000/-, and applying 40% future prospects and multiplier of 18 as per National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, loss of earning power fixed at Rs.45,36,000/-; (iv) attender charges of Rs.9,72,000/- computed by the multiplier method (Rs.4,500 x 12 x 18) following Divya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 (1) TN MAC 30 (SC); (v) non-pecuniary heads enhanced — pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-, loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000/-, loss of marriage prospects Rs.2,00,000/-, future medical expenses Rs.2,00,000/- (no interest), transportation Rs.50,000/- and extra nutrition Rs.50,000/- — while Tribunal's medical expenses Rs.5,11,201/- and damages to clothes Rs.1,000/- stood affirmed. Compensation enhanced from Rs.37,56,201/- to Rs.69,20,201/-, payable by the insurer with interest at 7.5% per annum on Rs.67,20,201/- from the date of petition till deposit within eight weeks. Result: insurer's appeal (CMA.No.2814 of 2024) dismissed; claimant's enhancement appeal (CMA.No.2320 of 2024) partly allowed; connected CMP No.22845 of 2024 closed; no order as to costs. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:475.)

2025:MHC:475

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 02 / 12 / 2024

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 19 / 02 / 2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

CMA NOS.2814 & 2320 OF 2024 AND

CMP NO.22845 OF 2024 IN CMA NO.2814 OF 2024

CMA.No.2814 of 2024

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.132 D, Travellers Bungalow Opo, Trichy Main Road, Thuraiyur, Trichy District.

... Appellant / Second Respondent Vs.

Naveen ... First respondent / Petitioner 2. Selvam ... Second Respondent / First Respondent

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Award dated July 28, 2023 passed in M.C.O.P. No.272 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub - Court No.II), Salem.

Page No.1 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

For Appellant : Mr.N.Somasundar For R1 : Mr.C.Paraneedharan For R2 : No Appearance

CMA.No.2320 of 2024

Naveen ... Appellant / Petitioner Vs.

Selvam

The United India Insurance Co., Ltd., No.132D, Opp: Travelers Bungalow, Trichy Main Road, Thuraiyur, Trichy District. ... Respondents / Respondents

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the Compensation awarded vide Award dated July 28, 2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.272 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub - Court No.II), Salem.

For Appellant : Mr.C.Paraneedharan For R1 : No Appearance For R2 : Mr.N.Somasundar

Page No.2 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

COMMON JUDGMENT

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated July 28, 2023 passed by the 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court No – II), Salem' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.272 of 2022, the claimant therein has preferred CMA.No.2320 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation, while the second respondent therein / Insurance company has preferred CMA.No.2814 of 2024 questioning the liability imposed on it as well as the quantum of compensation awarded.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rank in the Motor Accident Claim Original Petition.

PETITIONER’S CASE

3. The case of the petitioner is that on May 28, 2021 at about 10.30 pm, the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-48-AP-6827 at Thuraiyur road, near Devarapampatti APR Bakery, at that time, a foregoing autorickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-48-AR6439, suddenly turned right without any signals, and dashed on the motor

Page No.3 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

cycle, due to which, the petitioner fell down and sustained head injuries. Then, he was rushed to Government Hospital, Thuraiyur for first aid, and then shifted to Trichy Neuro – One Hospital followed by various other hospitals for better treatment. At the time of accident, the petitioner was a 21 year old Diploma holder, earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- monthly. Due to the accident, the petitioner became completely disabled and he could not do his work / day to day chores as before. Hence the petitioner filed the original petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/ (Rupees One crore only) from the respondents.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein, he

admitted the factum of accident but disputted the manner of accident. He stated that the accident occurred due to the disobedience of traffic rules and norms by the petitioner and hence, the first respondent is not responsible for the accident. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. The second respondent, who is the insurer of the first respondent’s autorickshaw filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it has been

Page No.4 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

stated that the petitioner was riding his motor vehicle without any valid driving licence and without wearing helmet. While the first respondent drove his vehicle in an average speed observing traffic rules and norms, it is the petitioner who failed to maintain adequate distance with the foregoing first respondent’s vehicle. Due to his speed, the petitioner was not able to control his motorcycle, and dashed on the rear side of the first respondent’s vehicle. The petitioner being the tort-feasor, is not entitled to any compensation. The age, occupation and the monthly income as averred by the petitioner are denied. Accordingly, it prayed to dismiss the petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. In order to prove the statements made in the claim petition, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.18 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one Jeeva was examined as R.W.1 and ExR.1 was marked. Ex-C.1 – Disability Certificate along with X-Ray was also marked.

7. The Tribunal based on Ex-P.1 – First Information Report (FIR) and the evidence of P.W.1, came to the conclusion that the accident

Page No.5 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

happened due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the first respondent’s vehicle. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took Rs.10,000/- as notional income, added 40% future prospects, applied multiplier of 18 and awarded compensation of Rs.30,24,000/- under the head of loss of earning power and further awarded compensation under various heads, as tabulated hereunder:-

*Sl.No.*	*Head*	*Amount*
1.	Loss of earning power	Rs.30,24,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	Rs.5,11,201/-
3.	Transportation, Nutrition & Attender Charges	Rs.20,000/-
4.	Pain and Sufferings	Rs.1,00,000/-
5.	Loss of amenities and Enjoyment of life	Rs.1,00,000/-
6.	Damages to clothing and articles	Rs.1,000/-
	Total	Rs.37,56,201/-

8. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner has filed the appeal in CMA.No.2320 of 2024 praying for enhancement of compensation; the second respondent / insurance company has filed the appeal in CMA.No.2814 of 2024, assailing the liability and the quantum awarded by the Tribunal.

Page No.6 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

ARGUMENTS

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is a Diploma Holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering. At the time of the accident, he was 21 years old and working as an apprentice in L.G.Balakrishnan and Brothers Limited, thereby receiving a stipend of Rs.12,500/-. The Tribunal failed to considered the age and qualification of the petitioner. Had the petitioner completed his apprenticeship, he would have earned not less than Rs.25,000/-. Further, due to the accident, the petitioner cannot move without anyone's help. The petitioner is suffering from complete paraplegia and loss of bladder control. Hence, he suffers 100% functional disability. The petitioner needs an attender throughout his life. The Tribunal failed to consider the said aspects and awarded a meagre sum of Rs.37,56,201/- as compensation. Accordingly, he prayed to enhance the award amount.

10. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent / insurance company would argue that the petitioner is not residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and hence, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application. Further, the accident happened only due to the negligence of the petitioner. The driver

Page No.7 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

of first respondent’s vehicle did not violate any traffic rules. On the other hand, the petitioner without any valid driving license and without wearing helmet, rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The accident happened only due to the rash and negligent riding and carelessness of the petitioner. The petitioner was the tort-feasor and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the appeal in CMA.No.2814 of 2024.

DISCUSSION

11. This Court has considered the submissions of the counsels on both sides and perused the evidence available on record.

12. As regards Jurisdiction, the Tribunal framed a specific point for consideration viz., Point No.1 in this regard and by relying on Ex-P.15 – Aadhar Card of the petitioner, concluded that the petitioner is residing within the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and hence, in view of Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. This Court concurs with the view of the Tribunal. Accordingly, preliminary objections raised by the insurance company are rejected.

Page No.8 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

13. As far as negligence is concerned, FIR has been registered

against the first respondent and the police, after conclusion of the investigation, filed charge sheet against the first respondent. P.W.1 deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. Hence, after considering the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident happened due to rash and negligent act of the first respondent. The evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner remains uncontroverted by the respondents. Further, at the time of the accident, the first respondent’s vehicle was insured with the second respondent, and hence the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal in this regard.

14. With regard to quantum of compensation, the petitioner was a Diploma holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, and M/s.L.G. Balakrishnan and Brothers limited had issued Order of Appointment for apprenticeship to the petitioner. The transfer certificate of the petitioner is marked as Ex-P.17 and his Appointment Order is marked as Ex-P.18. Ex-P.18 - Appointment Order would show that the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs.12,500/- as stipend as an apprentice.

Page No.9 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

Obviously, after completing the apprenticeship, he would have earned more. Considering his age and qualifications, this Court is of the view that his job prospects would have improved after apprenticeship and he would have earned at least a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month after apprenticeship. Tribunal had taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly salary which appears to be on the lower side. Hence, the same is liable to be interfered with. Applying 40% increase for future prospects and the multiplier of 18 as per the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation , reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court arrives at a sum of Rs.45,36,000/- as compensation under the head ‘loss of earning power’.

15. From Ex-P.4 to Ex-P.7 – Medical Records it is clear that the petitioner sustained spine injuries causing traumatic paraplegia, and consequently the petitioner suffers from mobility issues and loss of control over his bladder. Considering the medical expenses and also health condition of the petitioner viz., traumatic paraplegia and loss of bladder control, this Court is of the view that the petitioner suffers 100% functional disability. Hence, the petitioner without an attender's help,

Page No.10 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

cannot survive. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Divya -vsNational Insurance Co. Ltd, reported in 2023 (1) TN MAC 30 (SC), held that attender charges have to be calculated by adopting multiplier method. Considering attender charges at the fair and reasonable rate of Rs.4,500/per month, it would come to Rs.9,72,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 12 x 18) when appropriate multiplier of 18 is applied. The same is awarded under the head of attender charges.

16. As far as pain and sufferings is concerned, in view of the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and his current health condition, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/-. For the discomforts and the hardships he face due to the grievous injuries sustained, he is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. Further, admittedly, the petitioner is unmarried. As his marriage prospects are severely hit due to the accident, this Court deems fit to award Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of loss of marriage prospects.

17. Relying on Ex-R.1 – Medical Bill Verification Memo, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,11,201/- for medical expenses and the

Page No.11 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

same is justifiable. However, in view of the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner and the continuing nature of medical attention required, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for future medical expenses as well. This Court deems fit to award Rs.2,00,000/- for future medical expenses of the petitioner. That apart, the Tribunal was right in awarding Rs.1,000/- for damages to clothes and articles. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of 'transportation, nutrition and attender charges'. This Court is of the view that the said amount is on the lower side and the same has to be modified. Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of injuries sustained and also considering the present status of the petitioner (Paraplegia), this Court is of the view that awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) under the head of 'loss of amenities' would be justifiable.

18. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs.69,20,201/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakhs Twenty Thousand Two Hundred and One only) from the second respondent / insurance company as details below:-

Page No.12 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

S.No.
1.

S.No.	Head	Amount Rs.
1.	Loss of earning power [15,000+6,000 (40%) = 21,000; 21,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs.45,36,000/-]	Rs.45,36,000/-
2.	Pain and Suffering	Rs.2,00,000/-
3.	Attender charges (4500x12x18)	Rs.9,72,000/-
4.	Medical expenses	Rs.5,11,201/-
5.	Future Medical Expenses	Rs.2,00,000/-
6.	Transportation	Rs.50,000/-
7.	Extra Nutrition	Rs.50,000/-
8.	Loss of amenities	Rs.2,00,000/-
9.	Loss of marriage prospects	Rs.2,00,000/-
10.	Damages to clothes and articles	Rs.1,000/-
	Total	Rs.69,20,201/-

19. The second respondent / Insurance Company is directed

to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.69,20,201/-, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on Rs.67,20,201/- from the date of petition till the date of deposit, less the amount if any already deposited, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.272 of 2022 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court No.II), Salem, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It is made clear that Rs.2,00,000/- awarded for future medical expenses will not carry any interest. The deficit court fee, if any, shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this Judgment.

Page No.13 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

RESULT:

20. Resultantly, CMA.No.2814 of 2024 filed by the second

respondent / insurance company praying to set aside the Award is dismissed. CMA.No.2320 of 2024 filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal viz., Rs.37,56,201/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.69,20,201/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakhs Twenty Thousand Two Hundred and One only) and a modified award is passed as detailed above. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[J.N.B., J.] [R.S.V., J.] 19 / 02 / 2025 Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking Order : Yes av /tk To

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub - Court No.II, Salem.

Page No.14 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

AJ.

Page No.15 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA Nos.2814 & 2320 of 2024

J.NISHA BANU, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

av/tk

PRE-DELIVERY COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN CMA NOS.2814 & 2320 OF 2024

19 / 02 / 2025

Page No.16 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis