In a significant ruling on motor accident compensation, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court enhanced the compensation payable to a severely injured accident victim from ₹33.02 lakh to ₹57.98 lakh, while dismissing appeals filed by an insurance company challenging liability.
The Division Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed that appellate courts have wide powers to award “just compensation” and can enhance compensation even when the claimant has not filed a separate appeal seeking a higher amount.
Background of the Case
The case arose from two road accidents that occurred in December 2014. Kathiresan, a young JCB driver, initially sustained injuries when the car in which he was travelling was hit by another vehicle. After receiving first aid, he was being shifted in an ambulance for further treatment.
During the transfer, the ambulance met with another accident involving an omnibus. Kathiresan and his father, Sankar, suffered injuries in the second collision.
Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kathiresan claimed compensation of ₹70 lakh, contending that the second accident caused severe spinal cord injuries that left him permanently disabled. His father filed a separate claim for injuries suffered in the same incident.
The Tribunal accepted the claim and awarded more than ₹33 lakh to Kathiresan, holding that the major injuries were sustained in the second accident. The insurer of the omnibus challenged the finding before the High Court.
Insurance Company’s Argument
The insurance company argued that the claimant’s spinal cord injury had actually been caused in the first accident and not in the second one. It submitted that the later collision merely aggravated an existing condition and therefore substantial liability could not be imposed on it.
The insurer sought to shift responsibility to the insurer of the vehicle involved in the first accident.
Court’s Observations
After examining medical records and witness testimony, the Bench found that the claimant had suffered only minor injuries in the first accident and that the catastrophic spinal cord injury occurred during the second collision.
The Court noted that the claimant had consistently explained an incorrect reference in his pleadings regarding the spinal injury and that the medical records supported his version.
“The explanation offered for the discrepancy in the pleadings is reasonable and stands supported by medical records,” the Bench observed.
The Court further held that the insurance company had failed to produce any evidence contradicting the claimant’s medical records and testimony.
While considering compensation, the Bench expressed concern that the claimant’s counsel had not filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement despite the victim’s severe condition. The Court remarked that advocates have a responsibility to take necessary legal steps to secure adequate compensation for their clients.
The judges also recorded the claimant’s condition in detail, noting that he remained bedridden, suffered permanent paralysis, required artificial feeding support, and depended entirely on others for daily activities.
“The Court cannot remain a passive or mute spectator,” the Bench observed while deciding to exercise its powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Compensation Enhanced
Finding the original award inadequate, the High Court increased attendant charges substantially and granted additional amounts towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future medical expenses.
The compensation was enhanced from ₹33,02,600 to ₹57,98,000, with interest on the enhanced portion from the date of judgment.
Decision
The Madras High Court dismissed the insurance company’s appeal challenging liability and confirmed that the grievous spinal injuries were caused in the second accident. It enhanced Kathiresan’s compensation to ₹57.98 lakh and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with applicable interest.
The separate appeal relating to the father’s claim was also dismissed, and the Tribunal’s award in his favour was confirmed.
Case Details
Case Title: The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kathiresan & Ors.
Case Number: C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 21 and 181 of 2021
Judges: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
Decision Date: 1 June 2026
