Madrasdated High Court · 2025

CMA No.3277 of 2019For Appellant : Mr.K.SathyabalFor R3 : Mr.S.ArunkumarFor R1 : Mr.PurushothamanJUDGMENTChallenging the order passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. Before the Tribunal, he filed a claim application seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 30.12.2012 at Fishing Harbour, Kasimedu, Chennai, caused by the driver of L&T Komatsu Hydraulic Excavator PC-200. The said vehicle belonged to the first respondent herein. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was insured with the second respondent.2. The claimant took treatment in Apollo Hospital and another private hospital for about 40 days as an inpatient. Due to the injuries sustained in this accident, he suffered 100% disability and continues to suffer from paraplegia. The Medical Board of the Government of Villupuram Medical College Hospital certified 100% disability. He initially filed a claim for Rs.20,00,000/-. As he continues to suffer from 2 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019paraplegia and is bound to take lifelong medication, he has now prayed for enhancement of compensation to Rs.30,00,000/-. He has also submitted that the second respondent insurance company has merged with the third respondent herein, and therefore the third respondent was impleaded during the pendency of the appeal.3. Before the Tribunal, the second respondent remained ex parte. However, the claimant adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On his side, he examined himself as PW1, and medical records, bills, and the disability certificate were marked as Exhibits P1 to P21. Based on these documents, the learned trial Judge considered the 100% disability, applied the multiplier method, and awarded Rs.20,93,231/-. However, as the claim petition was restricted to Rs.20,00,000/-, compensation was awarded to that extent.4. The learned trial Judge held that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the first respondent and that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the second respondent was directed to pay the compensation 3 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019with interest. The claimant has now sought enhancement as stated above.5. During the pendency of proceedings, the appellant came to know that the second respondent had merged with the third respondent/HDFC General Insurance Company with all liabilities. Hence, necessary steps were taken to implead the third respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the excavator was driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the first respondent and hit the appellant, who continues to undergo lifelong treatment. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation from Rs.20,00,000 to Rs.30,00,000.7. In reply, the learned counsel for the third respondent raised objections stating that due to lack of communication after the merger, the third respondent could not contest the case earlier. However, he contended that since he has been impleaded, he is entitled to raise valid defences. He further submitted that, as per policy Ex.P3, the coverage was 4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019under a Contractors’ Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy, and therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation towards third-party claims. He also contended that the accident occurred due to criminal intimidation between the appellant and others and not due to the alleged negligence of the driver. According to him, even if liability is established, the statutory liability towards third-party claims is limited to Rs.3,00,000/-.8. To support his case, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the authority of the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. or Rajeswari & others CMA.No.1248 of 2022 before this Hon'ble Court judgement dated 23.08.2023. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment, stated as follows:11. From the materials on record, it is seen that the appellant has marked the insurance policy as Ex.R1. The said policy is called special contingency policy. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no indication in the policy reads as follows: “ Special Conditions – Machine Detail – Kobelco Hydraulic Excavator, Model No.SK-210HD, Machine Serial No.YN12-Bo402, Engine NO.JO5E-TA46032, YOM-2016 sum insured – 5450000, Basic CPM with Floter Coverage, Earthquake, STFI, Terrorism, owner surrounding property upto 10% of the machine value, third party liability upto 10% of the machne value, marine 5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019transit coverage of first lage (ITC – A Clause, 1 Leg of transit), Excess – 1 % of sum insured subject to a minimum of Rs.50,000/-”From a reading of the above conditions, it is clear that liability towards third party is restricted to 10% of the machine value. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in computing the compensation in terms of the Motor vehicles Act. However, the respondents 1 to 4 who are the legal heirs of the third party are entitled to compensation to the accident at 10% of the machine value which comes to the tune of Rs.5,45,000/-. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the award of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the compensation of Rs.15,69,400/- is liable to be set aside. The appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,45,000/- as compensation, as paer the terms of the insurance policy.”It was noted that in some cases only 10% of the machine value was considered as liability. However, the counsel for the appellant pointed out that such a condition does not apply in the present case because the accident did not occur at a work site but in a public place.9. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relied on the judgment reported in 2009 (7) SCC 777, in para 13, stated as follows:13.... (18). The endeavour of the Court must always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties. The court while construing the terms of policy is not expected to venture into extra liberalism that may result in result in rewriting the contract or substituting the terms which were not 6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019intended by the parties. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. (General Assurance Society Ltd., V. Chandmull Jain, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. V.Sony Cheriyan and United India Insurance Co.Ltd.V.Harchand Rai Chandan Lal.”To contend that insurance policies cannot be interpreted with extra liberalism. He submitted that the policy in question was a plant and machinery insurance policy with a limited liability of Rs.3,00,000/-, and that the terms and conditions of the policy are binding.10. Per contra, relied the ratio laid down referred cases below by the learned counsel for the appellant in :(i) 2001(3) SCC 157,(ii) The National Insurance Co. Vs.- Keshoram Pache Keshevarav Somya ... MACMA.No.3169 of 2012 by his Lordship Justice Dr.VRK.Krupa Sagar – Dt.09.05.2025, -Andhra Pradesh High Court. (iii) 2016-04-KAR CK 0006 – Tara Chanda & Sons -Vs. - Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., (iv) Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Babu & another CMA.No.1719 of 2021 order by His Lordship Justice K.Rajasekar – Dt.09.01.2024 – Madras High Court.7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 201911. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged vehicle involved in the accident was duly registered under the Tamil Nadu Motor vehicles Act, bearing Reg. No.TN-04-AA-7410, and that the necessary road tax had also been paid. As per the findings in 2001(3) SCC 157, The National Insurance Co-Vs- Keshoram Pache Keshevarav Somya... MACMA.No.3169 of 2012, decided by His Lordship Justice Dr.VRK.Krupa Sagar – Dt.09.05.2025, the Excavator and Earth movers are necessarily fall within the ambit of Section 2(28) of Motor Vehicle Act, the Central Motor Vehicle Act and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Act.12. If the vehicle is registered under the Motor Vehicle Act, Sections 146 and 147 mandate that third party insurance must also be covered and the necessary premium paid for the same. Therefore the 3rd respondent is liable to pay the compensation as awarded below.13. On considering both sides’ submissions and on perusal of the policy, it is clear that the first respondent’s vehicle was insured with the second respondent, which has since merged with the third respondent. It 8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019is also evident that an additional premium was collected towards third-party liability. Third Party Liability:In consideration of the payment of the additional premium of Rs.412.50, it is hereby agreed and declared that notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated in this policy, the company will indemnify the insured.(a) Against legal liability for the accident loss or damage caused to the property of other persons.(b) Against legal liability (liability under contract excepted)(c) for fatal or non-fatal injury to any persons other than the insured or his own employees or employee of the owner of the works / site / premises / location or employees of the other firms / connected with any other work site / premises / location or members of the family of the insured or any of the aforesaid.”Therefore, the contention of the third respondent that liability is limited to Rs.3,00,000/- is unsustainable, and the third respondent is bound to pay compensation as awarded.14. The further objection raised by the third respondent, that the FIR recitals showed that the accident did not occur as alleged and that the injuries were due to criminal intimidation, is also unsustainable. FIRs in accident cases are often lodged in haste and cannot substitute for evidence 9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019in determining negligence. Reliance on FIR contents alone is misplaced, as held in 2006 SCC 96, which squarely applies to the present case.15. Thus, the objections raised by the third respondent cannot be accepted. The facts reveal that at the time of the accident, the claimant was driving a vehicle bearing Reg. No. NL-15-674 (Hydraulic Escalator), at the Fishing Harbour, Chennai, which is a public place. He was accompanied by his friend Sathya Kumar, for the purpose of repairing a fishing boat. At that time, the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle drove in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner, and caused grievous injuries to his chest, spinal cord, hip, and other parts of the body. Immediately, after the accident, he was admitted to Apollo Hospital and later shifted to a Multi-speciality hospital. Even after completion of the surgery, the appellant / petitioner was not able to walk and continued to suffer from paraplegia. To prove his medical expenses and disability, he produced documents as well as the medical board certificate, which certified 100% permanent disability. The certificate also recorded that he was a case of Traumatic paraplegia, bedridden, suffering from bed sores, unable to move and incapable of walking he did before. The tribunal had 10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019awarded only Rs.20 lakhs. However, in view of the claimant's condition and his future medical expenses, enhancement of compensation is warranted.16. Considering these circumstances, this court is inclined to enhance the compensation as follows: At the time of the accident in the year 2012, the claimant was aged about 51 years. The petitioner claimed that he earning Rs.20,000/- per month and also contended that he was a stunt master in cine field, producing an ID card marked as Exhibit P-18. However, there is no direct proof of his income. Therefore, taking into account the cost of living and other relevant factors in 2012, this court fixes his monthly income at Rs.12,000/-. Additionally, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of Pain and sufferings and Extra Nourishment is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. In addition, this Court is inclined to grant Attender charges through out his life time, Loss of Amenities, and Future Medical expenses, which are awarded at Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively. The compensation awarded under the other heads by the Tribunal is confirmed.11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 201917. Calculation:•Notional Income: Rs.12,000/-•Disability (100%) : 12,000 x 12m x 11 x100/100 = Rs. 15,84,000/-18. The following tabular column sets out the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the enhanced amounts awarded by this Court under various heads:Sl. NoHeadsAmount (in Rs.) awarded by the TribunalAmount (in Rs.) awarded by the High Court1.Disability 8,58,00015,84,0002.Pain and sufferings50,0002,00,0003.Transportation5,0005,0004.Medical Expenses11,70,23111,70,2315.Extra Nourishment10,00050,0006.Attender Charges-2,00,0008. Loss of Amenities-1,00,0009.Future medical exp.-2,00,000TotalClaimant claimed amountRs.20,93,231/-Rs.20,00,000/-Rs.35,09,23112 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.35,09,231/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.19. It is well settled that the Tribunal and the Courts have to award just compensation. Though the claimant has claimed lesser compensation, the courts have the power to grant just compensation, even more than the amount claimed by the claimant.20. In the result:i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.35,09,231/-.iii. The claimant / appellant is directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if any. The Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the receipt of the Court fee.13 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019iv. The 3rd respondent / Housing Development Finance Corporation, Ergo General Insurance Company, Chennai, is directed to deposit the amount awarded by this Court i.e., Rs.35,09,231/- (Rupees Thirty five lakhs nine thousand two hundred and thirty one only), together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.v. On such deposit being made by the 3rd respondent, the appellant/claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same, after following due process of law.vi. The appellant/claimant shall not be entitled to claim interest for the period of delay, if any, in filing this appeal. 04.09.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/non Speaking orderNeutral Case citation: yes/norri14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019To1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kallakuruchi.2.L & T General Insurance Company, G-1, Ground Floor, Capital Towers, No.180, Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.3.M/s.Housing Development Finance Corporation, Ergo General Insurance Company, No.94/95, 2nd floor, RR Tower II, Tiruvika Industrial Estate Area, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Madras. 15 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3277 of 2019T.V.THAMILSELVI , J. rriC.M.A.No.3277 of 2019 04.09.202516 of 16