2026:MHC:1797C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved On :02.04.2026

Pronounced on: 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

and

C.M.P.(MD).Nos.1528 and 295 of 2021

C.M.A.(MD).No.21 of 2021 :

The Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

No.104-a, Ranga Building,

Peramanur Main Road, near Four Road,

Salem – 636007. ... Appellant / 7

th

Respondent

Vs.

1.Kathiresan ... 1

st

Respondent / Petitioner

2.Meenakshi Sundaram

3.The Divisional Manager,

Shiram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Having its Office at No.10003-E8,

RIICO Industrial Area,

Sitapura,

Rajasthan – 302022.

4.Erattayasamy

5.The Divisional Manager,

Shiram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Having its Office at No.10003-E8,

RIICO Industrial Area,

1/25

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

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

Sitapura,

Rajasthan – 302022.

6.K.Venkateswaran

7.A.C.Koteeswaran ... Respondents 2 to 7 / Respondents 1 to 6

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2019

made in M.C.O.P. No.62 of 2015 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge), Tirunelveli by allowing the above Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

For Respondent : Mr.R.Jim

Caveator for R1

Mr.V.Sakthivel

for R3 and R5

C.M.A.(MD).No.181 of 2021 :

The Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

No.104-A, Ranga Building,

Peramanur Main Road, near Four Road,

Salem – 636007. ... Appellant / 3

rd

Respondent

Vs.

1.Sankar ... 1

st

Respondent / Petitioner

2.K.Venkateswaran

3.A.C.Koteeswaran ... Respondents 2&3 /Respondents 1&2

2/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2019

made in M.C.O.P. No.63 of 2015 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge), Tirunelveli by allowing the above Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

For Respondent : Mr.R.Jim

Caveator for R1

Mr.R.Karunanithi

for R2

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J.)

The appellant–Insurance Company have preferred the present appeals

challenging the liability fastened upon it in respect of the alleged accident

involving the insured vehicle bearing Registration Nos. TN-30S-5151 and

TN-46M-6743 in which two persons namely son and father sustained injuries

and two claim petitions filed in M.C.O.P. No. 63 of 2015 (father/Sankar) and

M.C.O.P. No.62 of 2015 (son/Kathiresan) and award has been passed in both

M.C.O.P.s by the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2019.

2. For better appreciation and convenience, the rank of the parties in

these appeals is described as father and son.

3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

3.Facts of the case in M.C.O.P. No.62 of 2015:

3.1. Claimant is son. According to him, on 05.12.2014 at about 11:30

p.m., he was travelling in a Chevrolet car bearing Registration No.

TN-30M-3901 on the Ramanatham National Highway. The said vehicle was

insured with the third respondent–Insurance Company. While proceeding so, an

Eicher van bearing Registration No. TN-60W-6428 allegedly overtook and

dashed against the said Chevrolet car, resulting in the claimant sustaining

injuries (hereinafter referred to as the “first accident”) and FIR was registered

in Crime No. 201 of 2014 on the file of the Ramanatham Police Station under

Sections 279 and 338 IPC. Subsequently, the injured son was admitted to the

Government Hospital, Perambalur, in the early hours of 06.12.2014. Thereafter,

arrangements were made to shift him to a private hospital for further treatment.

For that purpose, a Maruti ambulance bearing Registration No. TN-46M-6743

was engaged. While the son was being transported in the said ambulance, it

involved in another accident with an omnibus bearing Registration No.

TN-66T-3051, allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving of the omnibus

driver (hereinafter referred to as the “second accident”). In the said occurrence,

son and father sustained injuries and FIR was registered against the appellant

insured omni bus in Crime No. 385 of 2014 on the file of the Padanoor Police

Station under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. In the second accident, the son

sustained more grievous injuries, particularly to the spinal cord. Owing to the

4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

cumulative impact of the injuries—especially the spinal cord damage—he

became bedridden, incapable of attending to his daily activities without

assistance, and required continuous medical care, including feeding through a

tracheostomy tube. In these circumstances, the claimant filed a petition in

M.C.O.P. No. 62 of 2015 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub

Court), Tirunelveli, seeking compensation of Rs.70,00,000/-. Father also

sustained grievous injuries and he filed M.C.O.P.No.63 of 2015 claiming

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3.2. The appellant–Insurance Company filed a counter statement denying

both the manner of accident and its liability. Its primary contention was that the

grievous injuries, particularly the spinal cord damage, were attributable to the

first accident, and not to the second accident involving the insured ambulance.

It was further contended that the subsequent accident did not independently

contribute to the injuries, but merely aggravated the earlier condition, and

hence no liability could be fastened upon the appellant. Conversely, the third

respondent–Insurance Company (insurer of the vehicle involved in the first

accident) contended that the grievous injuries were sustained only in the second

accident, and therefore sought to shift the entire liability upon the appellant.

5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

4. Finding of the Tribunal:

4.1. Both M.C.O.P. were tried separately by the same Tribunal

simultaneously and in the case of M.C.O.P.No. 62 of 2015, the claimant

examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor, who assessed the disability, as P.W.

2. On the side of the claimant, Exs. P1 to P27 were marked. No oral or

documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents, including

the appellant.

4.2. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that: the

negligence in respect of the first accident was attributable to the vehicle

involved therein, and the second accident was independently attributable to the

vehicle insured with the appellant. On the question of compensation, the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- in respect of the first accident, and a

sum exceeding Rs.20,00,000/- in respect of the second accident, holding that

the major and grievous injuries, particularly the spinal cord injury, were

sustained in the second accident. Accordingly, the substantial liability was

fastened upon the appellant–Insurance Company.

Sl.No. Heads Amount in Rs.

1 Loss of earning power 27,21,600/-

2 Medical bills 4,96,000/-

3 Attendance Charges 10,000/-

4 Pain and Suffering 50,000/-

5 Transport expenses 5,000/-

6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

6 Extra Nourishment 20,000/-

Total Compensation Awarded 33,02,600/-

Challenging the said award, the appellant–Insurance Company has preferred the

present appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.21 of 2021.

4.3. In the case of M.C.O.P.No. 63 of 2015, the claimant examined

himself as P.W.1 and Exs. P1 to P3 were marked. No oral or documentary

evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents, including the appellant.

4.4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal fixed negligence

upon the appellant insurance company alone for the reason that father did not

sustain injury in the first accident and he sustained injury only in the second

accident and granted compensation of Rs.20,000/- alone. Challenging the said

award, the appellant–Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal in

C.M.A.(MD).No.181 of 2021. The insurance company preferred C.M.A.

(MD).No.181 of 2021 in order to avoid the technical plea of maintainability

and they have not contested the same on the point of negligence and quantum

in C.M.A.(MD).No.181 of 2021 and they mainly contested the case of imposing

the liability against the appellant insurance company in respect of the award

passed in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2015 which was the subject matter of the C.M.A.

(MD).No.21 of 2021.

7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

5. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in

C.M.A.(MD).No.21 of 2021:

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the

grievous injuries, particularly the spinal cord injury, were sustained by the

claimant in the course of the first accident. It was therefore submitted that the

appellant–Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability for the

substantial compensation awarded by the Tribunal. According to the appellant,

the injuries arising out of the second accident did not independently result in

such permanent disability, but merely aggravated the pre-existing injuries.

Hence, the liability ought to have been mulcted upon the insurer of the vehicle

involved in the first accident, namely, the third respondent. It was further

pointed out that even in the claim petition, there is a reference to spinal injury

in the first accident, which supports the appellant’s case. On these grounds, the

appellant sought setting aside of the award insofar as it fastens liability upon it.

6. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the third

respondent:

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer of the vehicle

involved in the first accident (third respondent) submitted that any reference to

spinal injury in the pleadings was only due to an inadvertent error in the proof

affidavit, which stood clarified during the cross-examination of the claimant. It

8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

was contended that both the oral evidence of P.W.1 (claimant) and the medical

evidence of P.W.2 (Doctor) unequivocally establish that the grievous injuries,

particularly the spinal cord damage, were sustained only in the second accident.

Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the

appellant–Insurance Company, being the insurer of the vehicle involved in the

second accident.

7. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant:

7.1. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant also adopted the

submissions advanced on behalf of the third respondent. It was specifically

contended that the first accident resulted only in simple injuries, whereas the

second accident led to catastrophic consequences, including spinal cord injury,

resulting in permanent paralysis and complete immobility. It was further

submitted that the claimant is still bedridden, incapable of performing even

basic bodily functions without assistance, and is dependent on medical support,

including feeding through a tracheostomy tube.

7.2. On the question of quantum, the learned counsel for the claimant,

placing reliance upon the documentary evidence (Exs. P1 to P27) and the

nature of disability, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

is, in fact, inadequate. It was urged that even in the absence of a cross-

9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

objection, this Court is empowered to enhance the compensation by invoking

the provisions of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the

materials available on record, and also examined the legal principles governing

assessment of compensation in cases involving successive accidents, grievous

injuries, and permanent disability of a severe and debilitating nature.

9. Discussion:

9.1. It is no doubt true that in the claim petition there is a reference to the

claimant having sustained spinal injury during the course of the first accident.

However, during cross-examination, P.W.1 (son) has categorically explained

that such reference was an inadvertent mistake committed at the time of

preparation of the proof affidavit. He has specifically deposed that in the first

accident he sustained only simple injuries, particularly to the head, and did not

suffer any spinal cord injury.

9.2. The said explanation stands corroborated by the contemporaneous

medical records relating to the first accident, which indicate only simple

injuries. The initial treatment records issued by the Government Hospital also

do not disclose any spinal involvement. Thus, the nature of injuries sustained in

the first accident is clearly established as minor.

10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

9.3. On the other hand, the manner and impact of the second accident

stand substantiated not only through the oral evidence of P.W.1, but also by the

nature of damage caused to the ambulance in which the claimant was

transported. The evidence on record demonstrates that the ambulance was hit

by an omnibus coming in the opposite direction, resulting in severe crash. It is

in this second accident that the claimant sustained grievous injuries,

particularly to the spinal cord. The medical evidence, including the testimony of

P.W.2 (Doctor) and the documentary exhibits (Exs. P1 to P27), which were

marked without objection, clearly establish that the claimant underwent

prolonged treatment in various hospitals for neurological complications arising

from spinal cord injury. Significantly, the appellant–Insurance Company has not

disputed the gravity or extent of the injuries; its contention is confined only to

attributing such injuries to the first accident. However, no contra evidence has

been adduced by the appellant to substantiate the said plea.

9.4. In the above circumstances, the core issue that arises for

determination is whether the grievous spinal injury, which rendered the

claimant permanently disabled and immobile, was sustained in the first accident

or the second accident. Upon a cumulative assessment of the oral and

documentary evidence, this Court finds that the injuries sustained in the first

accident were only simple in nature. The contention of the appellant that no

11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

injury was sustained in the second accident is wholly untenable, particularly in

light of the proved impact of the collision and the resultant medical condition

of the claimant. The evidence of P.W.1 in this regard is consistent, cogent, and

has not been discredited in cross-examination. The explanation offered for the

discrepancy in the pleadings is reasonable and stands supported by medical

records. It is a settled principle that an admission, unless it is clear,

unequivocal, and unambiguous, cannot be treated as conclusive, especially

when a satisfactory explanation is offered. In the present case, the earlier

reference to spinal injury in the first accident stands duly explained and cannot

override the substantive evidence on record. In the absence of any contra

evidence from the appellant–Insurance Company, this Court concurs with the

finding of the Tribunal that the grievous spinal injury was sustained in the

second accident. Consequently, the liability has been rightly fastened upon the

appellant–Insurance Company.

10. On the question of enhancement of compensation without cross

Appeal by invoking Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

10.1.The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant has

been rendered completely bedridden, with paraplegia affecting both limbs, and

is dependent on external support even for basic bodily functions. It is further

submitted that he is being fed through a tracheostomy/nasal tube and is in a

12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

state of total immobility. Though no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been

filed seeking enhancement of compensation, it is contended that this Court is

empowered to grant just compensation by invoking Order XLI Rule 33 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. This Court is constrained to observe that the learned

counsel who represented the claimant before this court has failed in his duty in

not pursuing appropriate proceedings for enhancement of compensation,

particularly in a case involving such grave and permanent disability. In matters

concerning motor accident victims, it is incumbent upon counsel to take all

necessary steps to secure just and adequate compensation. Once an advocate

enters appearance on behalf of a party, particularly in appellate proceedings, he

assumes the role of a trustee of the client’s interests. It is incumbent upon him

to scrutinize the record and offer proper legal advice, including the necessity of

filing a cross-appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of compensation

where warranted. The failure to provide such essential advice, especially in

cases involving severely injured claimants, amounts to a dereliction of

professional duty. The legal profession, being a noble one, demands diligence,

competence, and commitment to the client’s cause. A growing tendency to rely

solely on the Court’s power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, without discharging

the primary obligation to advise and act in the client’s best interest, is a matter

of serious concern. Such inaction, in appropriate cases, may amount to

professional misconduct, warranting consideration by the appropriate

13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

disciplinary authority. Therefore this Court finds total lack of the professional

responsibility cast upon learned counsel appearing for injured claimant.

10.2.However, the failure on the part of counsel to file a cross-appeal

cannot preclude this Court from exercising its powers under Order XLI Rule 33

CPC, especially in cases of exceptional cases. The said provision confers wide

discretionary power upon the appellate court to pass such orders as are

necessary to do complete justice to the parties.

10.3. In the present case, the photographic evidence (Ex.P23) and the

medical records reveal the extremely precarious and pitiable condition of the

claimant.

14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

10.4. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly establishes that he is wholly

dependent on others even for basic needs and is leading a life of extreme

physical and functional disability. The evidence on record further discloses that,

consequent to the second accident, the claimant underwent prolonged and

continuous treatment in multiple hospitals, including at Tiruchirappalli (Atlas

Hospital), Madurai (Devadas Hospital), Government Hospital, Tirunelveli,

Annai Velanganni Hospital, and various other institutions providing specialised

neurological care.Despite such extensive treatment, his condition has remained

unimproved and there has been no significant improvement in his condition.

The medical evidence and the testimony of P.W.1 establish that the claimant has

suffered irreversible spinal cord injury, resulting in complete immobility and

paralysis of both upper limbs. He has been rendered bedridden and is dependent

on artificial means for sustenance, including feeding through a

tracheostomy/nasal tube. Further, he is wholly dependent on attendants even for

basic bodily functions, including attending call of nature. The overall condition

of the claimant reflects a state of extreme physical incapacity, wherein he is

neither capable of leading an independent life nor able to perform even minimal

daily activities. This is a case not merely a case of injury and is not a case of

mere survival where life itself has been hollowed out and has been reduced to

its barest mechanical existence, leaving behind only a breathing shell i.e. The

victim breathes, yet does not live in any meaningful sense. Consciousness has

15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

receded into silence—he neither perceives nor responds to the world around

him. His eyes may open, but they do not recognize; his body endures, but it

does not function with purpose or dignity. The victim lives, but the essence of

life has ebbed away. He is awake, yet devoid of awareness; his heart beats, but

it carries no expression of emotion. His eyes may flicker open, yet they do not

recognize, do not follow, do not respond. What remains is not a life of dignity,

but a silent existence suspended between being and non-being. Reduced to skin

and bones, his body bears the cruel imprint of prolonged suffering. The muscles

have withered, strength has deserted him, and each bone now presses painfully

against his fragile frame. Pain has not merely visited him—it has become his

constant companion, draining both body and spirit. He exists in a vegetative

state, where survival is mechanical, but life, in its true sense, is lost. Prolonged

suffering has emaciated his frame. The loss of muscle, the frailty of his body,

and the constant state of pain have rendered him wholly dependent. What

remains is not life in its true sense, but a condition of helpless endurance—

commonly described in medical terms as a persistent vegetative state.

10.5.In such a heartrending situation, this Court cannot remain a passive

or mute spectator. Therefore, notwithstanding such failure on the part of

counsel, this Court is duty-bound to ensure that substantive justice is not

defeated. Accordingly, in the present case, this Court is inclined to exercise its

16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

plenary powers under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC to enhance the compensation, so

as to render just and equitable relief to the injured claimant. The appellate

jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers

wide discretionary powers to do complete justice between the parties, even in

the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection. The Court cannot adopt a

narrow or pedantic approach to compensation. When human misery is pitted

against the operational negligence of motor vehicle, the Tribunal is duty bound

to redress the same by entering into pragmatic way in appreciation of the whole

evidence so as to avoid accidental victim being left in lurch. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in AIR 1980 SCC 1354 (N.K.V.Brothers (P) Ltd., Vs. Karumai

Ammal and others) emphasized the above requirement in the following

words:-

“3. ..... Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see

that innocent victim do not suffer and drivers and owners do not

escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some

obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred

from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court

should not succumb to neceties, technicalities and mystic

maybes.”

Therefore, this Court, in the exercise of its powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, is compelled to enhance the compensation so as to

meet the ends of justice. It is relevant to refer the principles laid down in

17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, wherein it was held that there is no restriction

that compensation cannot be awarded in excess of the amount claimed, and the

Court is duty-bound to award “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles

Act. Similarly, in Surekha v. Santosh, (2021) 16 SCC 467, Hon’ble Three

Judges Bench has found fault with High Court in not enhancing compensation

in the absence of cross objection in the appeal filed by insurance company and

held as follows:

“ By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance

claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court

should not take hypertechnical approach and ensure that just

compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants.”

10.6. In Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated

that the determination of compensation must be just, fair, and reasonable,

irrespective of technical pleadings.

10.7.The evidence, including photographic material, depicts a pitiable

and distressing condition, warranting a compassionate yet legally sound

reassessment of compensation. Further, having regard to the nature of injuries,

prolonged suffering, permanent disability, and loss of amenities of life, this

Court enhances the compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of

amenities, and attendant charges.

18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

10.8. The medical evidence, coupled with the testimony of P.W.1 and

P.W.2, clearly establishes that the claimant has suffered a catastrophic spinal

cord injury, resulting in permanent paralysis, complete immobility, and total

functional disability. He is bedridden, dependent on artificial feeding

mechanisms, and requires continuous assistance even for basic bodily

functions. The photographic evidence (Ex.P23) further corroborates the

extremely pitiable and irrersible condition of the claimant. Further, it is evident

that the claimant has lost his entire functional life. Prior to the accident, he was

employed as a JCB driver. Post-accident, he is not even in a position to affix his

signature, as evident from the records. The extent of disability has completely

deprived him of earning capacity, and independence. The claimant has

specifically pleaded and proved that he requires continuous assistance of an

attendant for his day-to-day survival. In such cases, it is well settled that

attendant charges can be awarded by applying the multiplier method,

particularly where the disability is permanent and necessitates lifelong care.

Further, with regard to the grant of attendant charges on a multiplier basis, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kavita v. Deepak recognized that in cases of

permanent disability requiring lifelong assistance, attendant charges constitute

a significant component of just compensation and may be computed by

applying the multiplier method. Similarly, in Rekha Jain v. National

Insurance Co. Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that compensation

19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

must adequately reflect the loss of amenities, dignity, and the lifelong hardship

suffered by the victim of a disabling injury. Applying the above principles, this

Court finds that the claimant, aged 26 years at the time of the accident, has lost

his entire functional life. Prior to the accident, he was employed as a JCB

driver; however, due to the injuries sustained, he is now rendered completely

incapable of earning or even performing basic personal functions. With regard

to attendant charges, considering the continuous requirement of assistance, this

Court fixes the monthly attendant charges at Rs.3,500/-. Taking into account the

remaining span of life and the requirement of lifelong assistance and all the

attending circumstances, impels this Court to adopt the multiplier method by

following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

(i) In the case of Kavitha Vs. Deepak reported in 2012 ACJ 2161.

(ii)In the case of Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways reported in 2014

3 SCC 210.

(iii) In the case of Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Alexix Sonier reported in 2015

17 SCC 758.

(iv)In the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 4 SCC 413.

(v) In the case of Kirti Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2021

2 SCC 166.

(vi) In the case of Abhimanyu Partap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon

reported in 2022 8 SCC 489.

20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

10.9. Considering the over all circumstances and the peculiar nature of

this case, this court is inclined to fix the attendant charges of Rs.3,500/- per

month and the same is calculated for the remaining period of 70 years as

decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagtshchane

reported in 2020 4 scc 413. Thus the attendants charges of the claimant is

calculated. Therefore, the attendant charges calculated as follows:

3500 X 12 X 44 = 18,48,000/-

10.10.The injured as observed above, totally immobile and undergoing

untold hardship and inconvenience and lost his total matrimonial pleasure and

hence, this Court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of

loss of amenity and inconvenience.

10.11. He undergone multiple surgeries and continuously taking the

treatment and he is able to take food only through his nasal tube. In his day-to-

day life, he is undergoing incalculable pain and suffering. Therefore, this Court

is inclined to enhance the compensation under the head of pain and suffering

from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.

10.12.The pleadings of the claimant and also evidence on record forced

this Court to legitimately presume that he requires continuous treatment.

21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of the

future medical expenditure.

10.13.In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and this Court is

obligated to invoke Order XLI Rule 33 CPC to enhance the compensation so as

to meet the ends of justice and is inclined to enhance the compensation from

Rs.33,00,000/- to Rs.57,98,000 and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

to the claimant is re-determined as follows:

Sl.No. Heads

Amount

awarded by

the Tribunal

Re-quantified

Amount by

this Court

Status

1Loss of earning power27,21,600/-27,21,600/-confirmed

2Medical bills 4,96,000/-4,96,000/-confirmed

3Attendance Charges 10,000/-18,48,000/-enhanced

4Pain and Suffering 50,000/-2,00,000/-enhanced

5Transport expenses 5,000/- 5,000/-confirmed

6Extra Nourishment 20,000/- 20,000/-confirmed

7Amenities and

inconvenience

--2,00,000/-awarded

8Future Medical

Expenditure

3,00,000/-awarded

Total 33,02,600/-57,98,000/-Enhanced

amount

24,98,000/-

22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

10.14. Since this Court considering the special circumstances is invoked

order XL1 Rule 33 of the CPC, this court inclines to grant interest of 7.5 % to

the enhanced amount of Rs.24,98,000/- from the date of this judgment.

11. Conclusion:

11.1. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant–Insurance Company

in C.M.A.(MD).No.21 of 2021 stands dismissed with modification of award in

of compensation by enhancing the award amount in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2015

from Rs.33,00,000/- to Rs.57,98,000/- with interest of 7.5 % to the enhanced

amount of Rs.24,98,000/- from the date of this judgment.

11.2. The first respondent in C.M.A.(MD).No.21 of 2021 is hereby

directed to pay court fee for the above enhanced amount.

11.3. The appellant–Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

enhanced compensation amount, together with applicable interest, within the

time stipulated by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

11.4. In the result, C.M.A.(MD).No.181 of 2021 stands dismissed

confirming the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.63 of 2015. There shall be no

order as to costs.

23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

11.5. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

[N.A.V.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes/No

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes/No

pal

To

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge),

Tirunelveli.

2.The Section Officer,

VR Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

24/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

and

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

pal

Judgment made in

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 181 of 2021

Dated: 01.06.2026

25/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis