(Prayers: Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award, dated 13.12.2024 passed in M.C.O.P. No.8 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mudukulathur and allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 r/w. Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the award dated 13.12.2024 made in MCOP No.8 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mudukulathur.)

P. Dhanabal, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been preferred as against the fair and decreetal order, dated 13.12.2024, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mudukulathur in M.C.O.P. No.8 of 2023.

2. The appellant in the present appeal is the second respondent and the cross objector is the claimant in the main claim petition. The claimant has filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.1,26,00,000/- for the injury sustained by him in a road accident took place on 19.11.2022. The Tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs.64,72,147/-. The Tribunal has fixed contributory negligence of 10% on the part of the claimant. Thereby, the second respondent / Insurance company, has preferred an appeal on the ground of negligence and quantum. The claimant has filed a Cross Objection challenging the fixation of contributory negligence of 10% and also for enhancement of compensation.

3. The case of the claimant/petitioner before the Tribunal is that the petitioner on 19.11.2022 had proceeded in his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 65 AZ 6306 along with his friends Vinothkumar and Thirumurugan. At that time, while they were going near Pambulnayakkanpatti bus stop, a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 65 BX 6781 came in opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle and the petitioner was thrown out from the motor cycle and at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.TN 34 R 1463 came from South to North side and ran over the legs of the petitioner and his legs were crushed. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Kamuthi and he was referred to Preethi Ortho Hospital, Madurai, where he was admitted as inpatient and his both legs were amputated below thighs and he expended a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards medical expenses and thereafter, on 31.12.2022, he was admitted as inpatient in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Further, an FIR was registered in Crime No.398 of 2022 as against the rider of the two wheeler, who came in opposite side of the petitioner's vehicle. At that time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 22 years and he was working as driver and earning a sum of Rs.600/- per day and thereby, he claimed Rs.1,26,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The second respondent in the main claim petition filed a counter denying the negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler, which came from opposite side. According to the second respondent, the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, who rode the two wheeler with triples, by breaching the rules. Therefore, the second respondent is no way liable for the accident and the petitioner is also contributed the negligence.

5. The third respondent had filed a counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. He stated that the accident took place only on the negligence of the petitioner and the rider of the two wheeler, who came in opposite side and the third respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN 34 R 1463 is no way responsible for the accident. Further, the third respondent was not even added as accused in the FIR and hence, he is no way liable for the compensation. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed as against the third respondent.

6. On the basis of the pleadings made by the petitioner and the respondents and after hearing both sides, the Tribunal has framed the following points for determination:

               1. Whether the rider of the first respondent vehicle is liable for the accident?

               2. Whether the rider of the third respondent vehicle is liable for the accident?

               3. Whether due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, the accident took place?

               4. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation for the petitioner?

               5. Whether the third respondent is liable to pay compensation for the petitioner?

               6. If so, what is the quantum of the compensation amount?

7. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 were marked. On the side of the third respondent, R.W.1 was examined and document Ex.R.1 was marked. On the side of the second respondent, R.W.2 was examined and Ex.R.2 was marked. The witness documents were marked as Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.6 and the Court document was also marked as Ex.C.1.

8. After analysing the evidence on both sides, the Tribunal has fixed the negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler, who came in opposite side, bearing registration No.TN 65 BX 6781 and awarded a sum of Rs.64,72,147/- as compensation to the petitioner and the Tribunal has fixed 10% of contributory negligence as against the petitioner.

9. Aggrieved by the fair and decreetal order, dated 13.12.2024, the second respondent, who is the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, has preferred the present appeal and the claimant has preferred the Cross Objection, challenging the quantum of the award and fixing 10% of contributory negligence.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the first respondent herein has filed a petition claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him in a road accident. The petitioner along with his two friends, rode the two wheeler, at that time, due to uncontrolled driving, dashed against the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 65 BX 6781, which came in opposite side and insured with the appellant/second respondent. Immediately, the first respondent/claimant and the pillion riders were thrown out of the vehicle. At that time, the third respondent's lorry bearing registration No. TN 34 R 1463 ran over the legs of the first respondent/claimant and thereby, he sustained injuries. The accident took place only due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner. However, the Tribunal only fixed the contributory negligence as 10% of the compensation amount. Since the negligence is on the part of the petitioner and the accident took place, finding of the Tribunal fixing liability on the part of the rider of the two wheeler, who came in opposite side, insured with the appellant /second respondent, is liable to be set aside.

               10.1. He would further submit that the Tribunal has also failed to consider that the petitioner has not produced any documents to prove his monthly income. In this circumstances, fixing Rs.15,000/- as monthly income of the petitioner, adopted multiplier method and awarded a sum of Rs.64,72,147/- as compensation to the petitioner is not sustainable. The appellant/second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.6,48,000/- towards future assistance and also awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.2,00,000/- for transport expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- for nutrition. All the above heads are on higher side. Hence, the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muthukulathur, in M.C.O.P.No.8 of 2023, dated 13.12.2024, are liable to be set aside.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in the appeal / claimant / cross objector, would submit that the claimant is a Diploma holder. At that time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 22 years and was temporarily working as Driver and was earning Rs. 600/- per day. However, the Tribunal had only fixed Rs.15,000/- as notional income and only awarded meagre amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for pain and sufferings. Even though the claimant lost his two legs below thighs, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.6,48,000/- for future assistance. The award fixed by the Tribunal in all heads are too low. Therefore, this Court has to enhance the amount awarded to the petitioner. As far as the negligence is concerned, eye witness P.W.2 has categorically deposed about the negligence. P.W.3 and P.W.4 have also deposed about the disability of the petitioner that the petitioner's disability is the functional disability. There is no contra evidence to rebut the evidence on the petitioner's side. However, the Tribunal awarded a meagre amount and without any evidence, fixed 10% contributory negligence. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside with regard to the contributory negligence and the award is to be enhanced.

12. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

13. The appellant in C.M.A(MD) No.903 of 2025 and first respondent in Cross Objection No.47 of 2025, herein after referred to as appellant/second respondent. The first respondent in the appeal and the cross appellant in the Cross Objection is herein after referred to as claimant.

14. The points for determination in this appeal are:

               (i)Whether the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 65 BX 6781?

               (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just compensation.

15. In this case, the accident and involvement of vehicles are admitted. According to the claimant/first respondent, accident took place only due to negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler, which came in opposite side bearing registration No.TN 65 BX 6781. The appellant/second respondent denied the negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler, which came in opposite side bearing registration No.TN 65 BX 6781, insured with the appellant/second respondent. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to prove the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler, which came in opposite side bearing registration No.TN 65 BX 6781, by adducing sufficient evidence.

16. In order to prove that negligence, the petitioner has examined P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 is the claimant and P.W.2 is the eye witness to the occurrence, who categorically deposed about the negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 65 BX 6781. In order to rebut the evidence of the petitioner, no rebuttal evidences were adduced by other side that is appellant/second respondent. In the absence of contra evidence, evidence adduced by the claimant/petitioner/first respondent is acceptable. According to the petitioner's side evidence, due to negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler, which came in opposite side bearing registration No.TN 65 BX 6781 and insured with the appellant/second respondent, the accident took place. However, the Tribunal fixed 10% contributory negligence as against the claimant, as they travelled triples in the two wheeler. 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.

17. As far as the quantum is concerned, according to the petitioner, he is a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and was temporarily working as Driver and earned a sum of Rs.600/- per day (Rs.18,000/- per month). In order to prove his nature of employment and monthly income, petitioner/claimant was examined as P.W.1 and he deposed about his nature of work and salary. The appellant/second respondent, did not adduce any other contra evidence. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the petitioner's side evidence are acceptable. Thereby, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the evidence of P.W.1. But without doing so, the Tribunal, awarded by fixing monthly income as Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.18,000/- is without any base. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that fixation of Rs.15,000/- as notional income of the petitioner is on lower side. Therefore, this Court accepting the evidence of P.W.1, fixes the salary of Rs.18,000/- per month as notional income of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced several documents to prove his case, in which, Ex.P.15 is the driving license of the petitioner. On careful perusal of the documents, the petitioner was aged about 22 years 7 months at that time of accident. The injury sustained by the petitioner has not been denied by the appellant and he also admitted that both the legs of the petitioner/claimant were amputated below thighs. Therefore, the claimant sustained permanent disability and it is a functional disability.

18. As discussed above, this Court fixed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.18,000/- and considering the age of the claimant, for future prospects, 40% have to be added. Accordingly, monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.25,200/-. This Court adopts multiplier of 18 and hence, the award amount would come to (25,200 x 12 x 18 =54,43,200).

19. According to the claimant, both his legs were amputated and he was permanently disabled. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, award amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, is too low. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/first respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Benson George Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and another reported in 2022 (1) TN MAC 314 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings in a amputation case. In this case also, the petitioner/claimant's both the legs were amputated and thereby, he is entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings.

20. The learned counsel for the claimant has produced the following judgments for enhancement of compensation on the other headings like future assistance, loss of amenities, etc.

               1. Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others reported in 2015 (1) TN MAC 801 (SC).

               2. Rani Nagalakshmi Vs. Srinivasan and others reported in 2024 (1) TN MAC 72 (DB)

               3. S.Mohammed Hakkim Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2025 (2) TN MAC 227 (SC)

               4. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chamundeswari and others reported in 2021 (2) TN MAC 449 (SC)

               5. Mohammed Siddique and another Vs. National Insurance Company Limtied and others reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 161 (SC)

               6. Rajwati @ Rajjo and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2023 (1) TN MAC 9 (SC)

               7. Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 328 (SC)

               8. Manikandan Vs. P.Palani reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 449 (DB)

               9. Manusha Sreekumar and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2022 (2) TN MAC 596 (SC)

               10. Kirti and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2021 (1) TN MAC 84 (SC)

               11. V.Nithya and another Vs. Arun and another reported in 2023 (2) TN MAC 548 (DB)

               12. Anjali and others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others reported in 2023 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC)

21. On careful perusal of above judgments, those are not applicable to this case as the facts of this case are distinguishable. In so far as the other headings are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable amount, for which, this Court is not inclined to interfere with.

22. In view of the aforesaid findings of this Court, the claimant/first respondent is entitled for a sum of Rs.54,43,200/- (18000*12=2,16,000/- +40%=3,02,400*18=Rs.54,43,200/-) under the head of permanent disability. This Court is inclined to award as tabulated below: