Madras High Court
The Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance vs V.Vigneseshvaran on 5 November, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.No.3192 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 05.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.M.A.No.3192 of 2021
The Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
Thirumalai Towers, 3rd Floor,
No.723, Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore District
.... Appellant
V.
1. V.Vigneseshvaran
S/o K.Vellinayagam
No.165 NA-AP Palaniappan Nagar,
Oddanchathiram,
Now at No.9, Maramman Koil Street,
Varadhampalayam,
Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District
2. S.Esudurai
S/o. Samuel
No.5/547, Krishna Nagar,
Arumugha Goundanoor,
Perur Chettipalayam, Coimbatore.
.... Respondents
______________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 01:14:26 pm )
C.M.A.No.3192 of 2021
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated
19.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.541 of 2015 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Sathyamangalam.
For Appellant :Mr.G.Vasudevan
For Respondents :Mr.B.Santhana Gopalakrishnan
for Mr.R.Nalliyappan – R1
R2 - set exparte
JUDGMENT
Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded vide award dated
19.02.2019 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge),
Sathyamangalam to the claimant who had suffered amputation of his right
forearm.
2. The claim was made on the premise that the vehicle bearing
Registration No.TN-66-K-3669 insured with the appellant company was
driven rashly and negligently by its driver near Anthiyur Sri Mahal on the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 01:14:26 pm )
Highways of Udumalpet to Pollachi Main Road on 28.04.2015 and dashed
against the vehicle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained near
total amputation of right forearm and arm muscles and multiple comminuted
fracture of radius, ulna and humerus.
3. The claimant was working as a priest in a temple and an astrologer,
earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to the injury sustained in the
accident, he lost his entire earning capacity besides pain and suffering.
Hence, he sought a compensation of Rs.45.00 lakhs under various heads.
4. The Tribunal after considering the evidence, particularly medical
evidence and the documents adduced by the claimant to substantiate his
earning capacity, which are marked as Exs.P.12 to P.21 which would
indicate that the claimant had certificate in Fine Arts for drawing with
undergraduate degree, fixed his earning capacity as Rs.15,000/- per month
notionally and applied the multiplier for the permanent disability of 65%.
Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.34,80,621//- has been awarded as
compensation under various heads.
5. The Insurance Company in the present appeal challenged the award
on the ground that the Tribunal has fixed 65% permanent disability and also
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 01:14:26 pm )
applied multiplier which is not in consonance with the evidence and
liability. Further, the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the driver
of the offending vehicle has no badge for goods carrier. Hence for the
breach of policy condition the insured should be exonerated from
indemnifying the vehicle owner. The award of Rs.1,02,621/- towards
medical bill is on the higher side and there is no proper bill to substantiate
the said claim.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/appellant
also submitted that having applied the multiplier for the disability and
adding 40% towards loss of future prospects, the Court below ought not to
have awarded any compensation on the heads 'pain and suffering' as well as
'loss of income during the treatment period'.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent submitted
that as a priest in the temple, the claimant has lost his entire income due to
amputation of his right forearm. However, the Tribunal instead of awarding
100% compensation towards loss of earning had fixed only 65%. Therefore
the award has to be enhanced.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 01:14:26 pm )
8. This Court has considered the rival submissions of both sides. The
amputation of right forearm of the claimant is an undisputed fact. The
educational qualification of the claimant though relied, his specific case is
that his livelihood was based on his job as a priest in the village temple and
as an astrologist. Both being an unorganised sector, the Tribunal has rightly
fixed a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as notional income and we find no
error in it.
9. Likewise, fixation of 65% towards loss of future prospects and
applying multiplier also well substantiated by evidence. The certificate
given by the Association of Village Temple Poojaris which is marked as
Ex.P.17 has no proof for income but only a proof of earning capacity of the
claimant. Apart from his membership in the Village Temple Poojari
Association, there is no indication to show that the claimant had real income
as Poojari. At the same time, we also take note of the fact that the claimant
is a graduate having Diploma in Teacher Training, his earning capacity is
not totally impaired due to the accident. Hence, fixation of 65% and
applying multiplier also found to be very reasonable. Hence, this Court
finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 01:14:26 pm )
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.
10. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with no
order as to costs. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the award amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of
filing of the petition till the date of realisation within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount
already deposited, if any, before the Court. Upon deposit, the claimant is
permitted to withdraw the award amount, less the amount, if any, already
withdrawn on filing an appropriate petition before the trial Court.
(Dr.G.J.J.) & (M.S.K.J.)
05.11.2025
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes
Speaking order/non speaking order
Neutral citation:yes/no
sl
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge),
Sathyamangalam.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 01:14:26 pm )
