Liberty General Insurance Ltd v. Evinraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:14.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and C.M.P.No.21598 of 2025 M/s.Liberty General Insurance Ltd., II Floor, Srivari Shopping Mall, No.2/9, New Bus Stand, Near A.R.R.S.Multiplex, Meyyanur, Salem-636 004.
.. Appellant Vs.
1.Evinraj 2.Murugan .. Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.219 of 2021 dated 25.04.2025 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dharmapuri. For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghavan for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates For R1 : Mr.V.Kadhirvelu For R2 : Exparte 1/11
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri in M.C.O.P.No.219 of 2021, is before this Court challenging the quantum of compensation.
2.
The respondent herein, who is the claimant, aged about 30 years, was employed as an officer in City Union Bank, earning a monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-. On 17.09.2020, while he was riding his Honda Activa two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN 29 BU 8454 from his village to Omalur Town, the rider of a Royal Enfield Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 29 BR 6234 dashed against the claimant's two wheeler, causing grievous fractures and injuries. The claimant filed the claim petition seeking a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the disability suffered due to accident.
3.
The Tribunal, based on the medical report assessing 70% functional disability, applied the multiplier and considering the other expenses on various heads has awarded a sum of Rs.64,35,968/- vide 2/11
order dated 25.04.2025.
4.
The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is predicated on the ground that the collision between the claimant's two wheeler and the Royal Enfield Bullet occurred due to the contributory negligence of the claimant. According to the insurer, if the claimant had been careful, he could have avoided head-on collision. The Tribunal, however, failed to consider the contribution of the victim/claimant in the said accident. 5.
Further, it is also contended by the Insurance Company that the Medical Board has not provided any valid reason for assessing the functional disability at 70%. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant has not resulted in any impairment affecting his employment or the salary. While so, applying the multiplier with 70% functional disability is exorbitant and contrary to the principles laid down in Rajkumar V. Ajaykumar case 6.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company referring to the fact that the claimant, after treatment had resumed his employment and continued to earn the same salary as he was 3/11
earning prior to the accident. This would clearly show that the injuries sustained by the claimant and the functional disability asserted by him had not caused any impact on his income.
7.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that the claimant, being an officer in the City Union Bank, had prospects of earning more by canvassing business for the bank and getting incentives for such work. Due to the accident, his prospects of earning incentives have been totally lost. The functional disability of 70% assessed by the Medical Board remains unassailable. While so, it is incorrect to say that the Tribunal mechanically applied multiplier with 70% functional disability.
8.
This Court, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the impugned order of the Tribunal, finds that the claimant had undergone four surgeries on different dates in order to resume his normal life. With the replacement of right hip, fixation of fractured left tibia and open reduction with plating of the left leg. No doubt, he had resumed his employment and is drawing his salary as he was drawing prior to the accident. However, the nature of the injuries has had a direct impact on his functional disability, particularly with respect to the incentive, which 4/11
he could have earning by canvassing business for the bank, is the direct causality due to the accident. Therefore, applying the multiplier for assessing loss of income is not erroneous.
9.
However, the disability percentage of 70% has opined by the Medical Board does not appear to be proportionate to the functional disability, in view of the fact that the claimant continues to carry on his regular job as an officer of City Union Bank and continues to draw his full salary with periodical increment for discharging his duty. 10.
In the said circumstances, we are of the view that fixing functional disability at 70% to compute loss of income is erroneous and on the higher side. Therefore, we interfere with the award of compensation in the impugned order and modified it as below:- The modified award shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation with costs. The respondent/claimant shall furnish his bank details for the purpose of direct deposit the modified award amount. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount within a period of eight weeks from today. Any amount already deposited by the 5/11
appellant in the C.M.A., account or M.C.O.P., account pursuant to the orders of this Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant. 11.
In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
[Dr.G.J., J.] & [M.S.K., J.] 14.11.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rpl To The Family Court, Chengalpet District.
6/11
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J.
and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR., J.
rpl 14.11.2025 7/11
DR.
G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J .
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J.] This matter is listed under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the judgment dated 14.11.2025, one tabular column, relating to the award under various heads was inadvertently omitted in paragraph No.10 and a correction is also required in the 7th line of part 2 of paragraph 10. Therefore, he prays for necessary correction.
3. On perusal of the records, this Court finds that the omission of the tabular column in paragraph No.10 is due to an inadvertent typographical error.
4. Accordingly, paragraph No.10 of the judgment dated 14.11.2025 8/11
is hereby deleted and substituted with the following:- "10.
In the said circumstances, we are of the view that fixing functional disability at 70% to compute loss of income is erroneous and on the higher side. Therefore, we interfere with the award of compensation in the impugned order and modified it as below:- Heads of compensation Amount awarded Monthly income 40,000/- Future prospects 50% added NIL Functional Disability 30% Loss of income 40,000 x 12 x 17 x 30/100 24,48,000 Deduction towards personal expenses(1/2) ...
Medical Bills 14,34,968 Transport 67,000 Loss of marriage prospects 2,00,000 Extra Nourishment 50,000 Pain and Suffering 1,00,000 Attender charges during treatment in hospital 1,00,000 Attender charges for attending office 2,00,000 Total 45,99,968 The modified award amount of Rs.45,99,968/- shall 9/11
carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, with costs. The respondent/claimant shall furnish his bank details `for the purpose of direct deposit of the modified award amount. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount within a period of eight weeks from today. Any amount already deposited by the appellant in the M.C.O.P., account towards the statutory deposit shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant. The appellant shall, after payment of the advocate fees as mentioned in the award directly to the counsel on record, deposit the balance of the modified award amount in the account of the M.C.O.P.No.219 of 2021 within the period of eight weeks."
5. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections and issue fresh order copy to the parties concerned forthwith. [Dr.G.J., J.] & [M.S.K., J.] 21.11.2025 rpl 10/11
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J.
and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR., J.
rpl 21.11.2025 11/11