High Court Enhances Compensation to Rs.86 Lakh and Dismisses Insurer's Appeal

A bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice P. Dhanabal of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court heard an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mudukulathur. The appeal contested both liability and quantum in a claim arising from a road accident dated 19 November 2022; the claimant filed a cross objection seeking enhancement and the setting aside of 10% contributory negligence.

The High Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal and partly allowed the claimant’s cross objection, enhancing the total compensation to Rs.86,00,000/-. The court accepted the claimant’s testimony and eyewitness evidence, set aside the Tribunal’s finding of 10% contributory negligence imposed because the claimant travelled as one of three persons on a two‑wheeler, and revised the notional income and future prospects before applying a multiplier of 18 for permanent disability. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the absence of contra evidence, evidence adduced by the claimant/petitioner/first respondent is acceptable. ... It is well settled law that merely because the claimant along with two others rode in a two wheeler, the liability cannot be fastened on the rider of the two wheeler without any strong evidence. In the case on hand, no evidence adduced by the other side to rebut the evidence of the claimant, thereby finding of the Tribunal in fixing 10% contributory negligence as against the petitioner is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.” The court also directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with interest, stating: "The appellant/2nd respondent is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the petition till realization."

Background The claimant, then aged about 22 years, had proceeded on a two‑wheeler with two friends near Pambulnayakkanpatti bus stop when an oncoming two‑wheeler allegedly dashed into their vehicle and threw the occupants out; a lorry subsequently ran over the claimant’s legs, which were later amputated below the thighs. The claimant sued for Rs.1.26 crore, pleading permanent disability and substantial future needs. The Tribunal awarded Rs.64,72,147/-, but fixed 10% contributory negligence against the claimant for riding with two pillion passengers.

The insurer contested liability and quantum before the High Court, arguing that the accident arose from the claimant’s own uncontrolled driving and that the claimant had not proved his income. The claimant maintained that eyewitness evidence supported the finding of negligence against the oncoming two‑wheeler and that the Tribunal’s quantum was inadequate for bilateral below‑thigh amputations.

The High Court examined oral and documentary evidence, noting that P.W.2 (an eyewitness) had categorically deposed to the negligence of the rider of the offending two‑wheeler and that the insurer adduced no rebuttal evidence. The court found the Tribunal’s imposition of contributory negligence unsustainable in the absence of strong evidence that the claimant’s triple travel caused the accident. The court accepted the claimant’s assertion of a notional monthly income of Rs.18,000, added 40% for future prospects to reach Rs.25,200 per month, and applied multiplier 18 to arrive at Rs.54,43,200 for permanent disability. The court increased pain and suffering to Rs.10,00,000/-, and awarded other heads (hospital expenses, future assistance, loss of marital prospects, transport, nutrition, loss of amenities, etc.), arriving at a total of Rs.85,98,475/-, rounded to Rs.86,00,000/-. The insurer was ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation within two months with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition; upon deposit (after adjusting amounts already paid, if any) the claimant was entitled to withdraw the amount by filing an appropriate application. The appeal was dismissed, the cross objection was partly allowed, and no costs were imposed.

Case Details: Case No.: C.M.A(MD) No.903 of 2025 Case Title: The Legal Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited v. Moovendran & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. D. Senthil (Advocate for claimant) For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.R. Shivashankari (Advocate for Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited); Mr. A. Karthigaivel (Advocate for third respondent)