The court emphasized the need for adequate compensation based on the severity of injuries and functional disability, enhancing the award from Rs.32,09,158 to Rs.50,38,310.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated June 27, 2024 passed by the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short] in MCOP No.1420 of 2019, the petitioner therein has preferred CMA.No.2758 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation, while the second respondent therein/Insurance company has preferred CMA.No.9 of 2025 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. On February 15, 2019, at around 00:15 hours, the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-14-H-8960, properly wearing a helmet. The motorcycle was proceeding from west to east and turned south near Mathiya Kailash Signal on Sardar Patel Road, Chennai. At that time, a van bearing Registration No.TN-32-S-4128 which was also proceeding in the same direction, was driven rashly and negligently at high speed, without following traffic rules, in a zigzag manner. The Van suddenly turned south and collided with the petitioner’s motorcycle, causing the petitioner to be thrown off. As a result, the petitioner sustained fractures to the left hand, left leg, and left shoulder, along with multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai and then he received treatment at some private hospitals in Chennai. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's van bearing Registration No. TN-32-S-4128. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was 22 years old and earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. Due to the accident, the petitioner became completely disabled and was unable to perform work or daily chores as before. Therefore, 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 is the owner of the van bearing Registration No.TN-32-S-4128 and he remained absent before the Tribunal and was accordingly set ex-parte by the Tribunal.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. The second respondent, who is the insurer of the first respondent’s van, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is required to provide strict proof of his age, occupation, date, place, and time of the accident, as well as the name and address of the driver, owner, and insurer of the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident. According to the second respondent/insurance company, the said van was not involved in the accident. It was further denied that the driver of the van held a valid and effective driving license. It was also denied that the vehicle was plying with a valid fitness certificate and permit at the time of the accident. Further, it was claimed that the accident occurred due to negligence on part of rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-14-H-8960, on which the petitioner was riding as a pillion and that he was solely responsible for the accident.

5.1. The second respondent/insurance company filed an additional counter, wherein it was stated that the petitioner is required to provide strict proof that he sustained injuries in the accident alleged to have occurred on February 15, 2019. Further, it was stated that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. Accordingly, it prayed for the dismissal of 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.11 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. Ex-C.1 – Disability Certificate of the petitioner given by the Medical Board was marked.

7. The Tribunal based on Ex-P.1 – First Information Report (FIR) a