Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68904
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
THE MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
Senthilkumar Narayanasamy – Respondent
CMA No. 2230 of 2026 | CMP NO. 17075 OF 2026
Important Points
Subject
Tort Law - Motor Accidents Compensation
Headnote
(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Appellate jurisdiction - Court sitting in appeal is restricted to examining whether the trial court's award is founded on proper appreciation of evidence - Appellate court should not substitute its view when the trial court's judgment is based on established evidence and current legal precedents regarding future prospects and income calculation. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The claimant, a laborer, suffered severe injuries including amputation of a limb in a motor vehicle collision involving a transport vehicle. The insurance company sought to reduce compensation, pleading contributory negligence due to consumption of alcohol by the claimant and citing the absence of a valid fitness certificate for the offending vehicle. The tribunal awarded specific amounts for medical expenses, loss of income, and future expenses, leading to the current appeal.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal appropriately determined the claimant's age and applied the relevant multiplier while calculating future income losses. The inclusion of an increase for future prospects was in accordance with established legal norms. The evidence provided was sufficient to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
Issues: The central issues were the extent of the claimant's alleged contributory negligence and whether the calculation of compensation, including future earnings and medical costs, was legally sound.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a claimant has established the causative negligence of the driver and demonstrated catastrophic injuries leading to total functional disability, the award of compensation based on notional income and established multipliers is deemed just and proper. The insurance company cannot avoid liability for third-party claims based on administrative deficits like the absence of a fitness certificate.
Result: Appeal dismissed; award confirmed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Suresh Srinivasan
For the Respondents: E.N. Kandhasamy
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Jothiraman J.)
Unsuccessful Insurance Company has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, challenging the award dated 05.03.2025 in MCOP.No.1422/2021, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tiruppur.
2. According to the claimants, on 26.07.2021 at 19.00 hours, the injured Senthilkumar Narayanasamy was riding a Hero Honda vehicle, bearing Reg.No.TN 42 X 4036, on the Dhally to Udumalai road near Thinaikulam Indira Nagar. At that time, the driver of the Mahindra Maxx Pickup vehicle bearing Reg.No. TN 42 4615 was driving in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the said Hero Honda Bike, resulting in Senthilkumar Narayanasamy sustaining grievous injuries. Due to the injuries sustained, the claimant is unable to do his work and lost the earning capacity and accordingly, claimed compensation before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-.
3. The appellant Insurance Company / 2nd respondent therein has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the injured had consumed alcohol at the time of accident and was walking carelessly which caused the accident. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the 2nd respondent therein / appellant insurance company is no way liable to pay compensation.
4. On the side of the claimants, the injured examined himself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board were marked as Exs.C1 & C2 and no oral evidence adduced. On the side of the respondent Insurance Company, Copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report was marked as Ex.R1. Upon appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal found that the Insured has established his case that the driver of the 1st respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to the claimant. The Tribunal also finds that the vehicle was covered under insurance on the date of the accident and the insurance company cannot deny compensation in respect of 3rd party claims. Since there was no valid fitness certificate on the date of the accident, the 2nd respondent therein / appellant insurance company was directed to pay compensation and recover the same from the 1st respondent / owner of the vehicle. Considering the injuries caused to the injured / claimant at the time of accident, the suffering caused by it, his age, occupation and income, awarded compensation in the following heads:
| Head of Compensation | Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.) |
| Loss of Income (Rs.1,87,500 x 14) | 26,25,000 |
| Loss of Pain and Suffering | 70,000 |
| Loss of Amenities | 50,000 |
| Medical Expenses | 3,14,265 |
| Future Expenses towards replacement of artificial limbs | 1,00,000 |
| Transportation Expenses | 15,000 |
| Nourishment Expenses | 25,000 |
| Attender Expenses | 25,000 |
| Damages to petitioner’s clothes | 5,000 |
| Total | 32,29,265/- |
Aggrieved over the same, the 2nd respondent therein / appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was no eye witness to establish and fix negligence on the part of the driver of the injured vehicle. The injured has consumed alcohol while driving the vehicle and the same is mentioned in the Wound Certificate and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed 20% Contributory Negligence.
6. According to the injured / 1st respondent, he was a Coolie worker at the time of accident and his right leg was amputated due to the accident and it is impossible for him to continue his livelihood and the Medical Board sustained 100% functional disability of the claimant and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper.
7. It is seen from the records that the claimants has not produced any records to prove his age and as such, the Tribunal fixed the claimant’s aged as 44 years based on medical records and applied the Multiplier “14”. The claimant was a Coolie worker at the time of accident and the monthly
