Insurer must provide substantial evidence to contest negligence and compensation; the Tribunal’s assessment of circumstances surrounding negligence and injuries upheld.

C.S.SUDHA, J.

---------------------------------------------------

M.A.C.A. No.492 of 2020 ----------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2025 J U D G M E N T This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P. (MV) No.892/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 21/05/2019. The respondents herein are claim petitioners 1 and 2 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioners, on 29/11/2013 at

08:30 a.m., while the second claim petitioner was pillion riding on scooter bearing registration No.TN 75F/8986 through the Arassummoodu-Convent junction road and when they reached the place by name Convent junction, van bearing registration No.TN

74Z/4339 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked her down, as a result of which she sustained ₹

grievous injuries. A sum of 35,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle, but denied negligence on the part of the second respondent. The age, occupation, income etc. of the second claim petitioner were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A15 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was produced by the third respondent/insurer.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver resulting in the incident and hence ₹

awarded an amount of 50,90,120/- together with interest and proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides

9. The Award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the third respondent/insurer -

Bystander expenses It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the ₹

third respondent/insurer that an amount of 13,00,000/- was claimed towards treatment ; medicine ; hospital expenses and bystander expenses. However, the Tribunal has granted an amount ₹

of 8,04,000/- for medicine and hospital expenses and a further ₹ ₹

amount of 22,68,000/-, that is, at the rate of 350/- per day for a period of 18 years, towards bystander expenses. This is seriously contested by the insurer. It is submitted that in the absence of any evidence to show that the second claim petitioner is in a vegetative state or in a position where she cannot manage without the assistance of a third person, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding the said amount. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners referring to Ext.A9 and Ext.X1 certificates that the second claim petitioner is now completely bedridden, unable to move around without the assistance of a third person and therefore the Tribunal was justified in awarding the said amount, which suffers from no infirmity calling for an interference by this Court. In support of the argument, reference is made to the dictum in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand ,