Madurai Bench Raises Motor Accident Award to Rs 57.98 Lakh for Man Left in Vegetative State After Ambulance Crash
The Madurai Bench enhanced compensation for a JCB driver rendered permanently immobile after a second road accident struck the ambulance carrying him from the first crash site.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai, comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, on 1 June 2026 dismissed appeals filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging its liability for a catastrophic spinal cord injury sustained by a young man in a road accident on 5 December 2014. The insurer had argued that the grievous injuries were caused by an earlier accident, not the one involving its insured vehicle. The Bench rejected that contention and, going further, invoked Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enhance the compensation — even in the absence of a cross-appeal by the claimant — raising the total award from Rs 33,02,600 to Rs 57,98,000. The judgment, authored by Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, also contains a pointed observation about the professional duty of counsel representing severely injured claimants in appellate proceedings.
Two Accidents on the Same Night
The facts involve an unusual sequence of events. On the night of 5 December 2014, Kathiresan (the son/claimant) was travelling in a Chevrolet car bearing registration number TN-30M-3901 on the Ramanatham National Highway when an Eicher van bearing registration number TN-60W-6428 allegedly overtook and collided with the car. An FIR was registered at Ramanatham Police Station in Crime No. 201 of 2014 under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. Kathiresan was admitted to Government Hospital, Perambalur, in the early hours of 6 December 2014.
Arrangements were then made to shift him to a private hospital. A Maruti ambulance bearing registration number TN-46M-6743 was engaged for that purpose. While Kathiresan was being transported in the ambulance, it was struck by an omnibus bearing registration number TN-66T-3051, allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving of the omnibus driver. An FIR was registered at Padanoor Police Station in Crime No. 385 of 2014 under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. In this second accident, both Kathiresan and his father Sankar, who was accompanying him, sustained injuries.
The consequences for Kathiresan were catastrophic. The spinal cord damage from the second accident left him bedridden, incapable of attending to his daily activities without assistance, and dependent on feeding through a tracheostomy tube. His father Sankar sustained injuries only in the second accident.
Kathiresan filed M.C.O.P. No. 62 of 2015 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge), Tirunelveli, seeking Rs 70,00,000 in compensation. Sankar filed M.C.O.P. No. 63 of 2015 claiming Rs 5,00,000.
The Liability Dispute: Which Accident Caused the Spinal Injury?
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., as the insurer of the omnibus involved in the second accident, was the appellant. Its central contention before the Tribunal and before the High Court was that the grievous spinal cord injury was attributable to the first accident, not the second. It argued that the second accident merely aggravated a pre-existing condition and could not independently ground the substantial liability fastened upon it.
The insurer of the vehicle involved in the first accident — Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. — took the opposite position, contending that the grievous injuries were sustained only in the second accident and that the entire liability should rest with United India Insurance.
The Tribunal had tried both M.C.O.P.s separately but simultaneously. In M.C.O.P. No. 62 of 2015, Kathiresan examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor who assessed the disability as P.W.2. Exhibits P1 to P27 were marked on the claimant's side. The appellant and other respondents adduced no oral or documentary evidence. The Tribunal awarded Rs 50,000 for the first accident and over Rs 20,00,000 for the second, holding that the major spinal injury was sustained in the second accident. The total award in M.C.O.P. No. 62 of 2015 was Rs 33,02,600. In M.C.O.P. No. 63 of 2015, the Tribunal awarded Sankar Rs 20,000, fixing negligence on the appellant alone since Sankar had not been injured in the first accident at all.
United India Insurance challenged both awards under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in C.M.A.(MD).No.21 of 2021 (Kathiresan's case) and C.M.A.(MD).No.181 of 2021 (Sankar's case). The Bench noted that the insurer's real contest was confined to C.M.A.(MD).No.21 of 2021; C.M.A.(MD).No.181 of 2021 was filed primarily to avoid a technical plea of maintainability and was not seriously contested on negligence or quantum.
How the Bench Resolved the Factual Dispute
The appellant pointed to a reference in the claim petition itself to spinal injury having been sustained in the first accident. The Bench examined this carefully. During cross-examination, Kathiresan (P.W.1) explained that the reference was an inadvertent mistake made at the time of preparing the proof affidavit, and that in the first accident he had sustained only simple injuries, particularly to the head, with no spinal cord involvement.
The Bench found this explanation credible and supported by contemporaneous medical records. The initial treatment records from Government Hospital did not disclose any spinal involvement following the first accident. The Bench applied the settled principle that an admission that is not clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous cannot be treated as conclusive when a satisfactory explanation is offered. The earlier reference to spinal injury in the pleadings, the Bench held, could not override the substantive evidence on record.
On the second accident, the Bench found the evidence cogent. The ambulance had been struck by an omnibus coming from the opposite direction, causing a severe crash. The medical evidence — including the testimony of P.W.2 and Exhibits P1 to P27, marked without objection — established that Kathiresan underwent prolonged treatment in multiple hospitals, including Atlas Hospital in Tiruchirappalli, Devadas Hospital in Madurai, Government Hospital Tirunelveli, and Annai Velanganni Hospital, for neurological complications arising from spinal cord injury. The appellant had not disputed the gravity of the injuries; its case was only that those injuries were caused by the first accident. Having adduced no contra evidence, the Bench held that the appellant could not sustain that plea.
The Bench concurred with the Tribunal: the grievous spinal injury was sustained in the second accident, and liability was rightly fastened upon United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Enhancement Without a Cross-Appeal: Order XLI Rule 33 CPC
Counsel for Kathiresan urged the Bench to enhance the compensation even though no cross-appeal or cross-objection had been filed. The argument rested on Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which confers wide discretionary power on an appellate court to pass such orders as are necessary to do complete justice.
Before addressing the legal question, the Bench made a pointed observation about the conduct of the claimant's counsel. It noted that counsel had failed in his duty by not advising Kathiresan to file a cross-appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of compensation, particularly given the severity of the disability. The Bench observed that once an advocate enters appearance in appellate proceedings, he assumes the role of a trustee of the client's interests and is obliged to scrutinise the record and offer proper legal advice. The failure to do so in a case involving such grave and permanent disability, the Bench said, amounts to a dereliction of professional duty, and that relying solely on the court's power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC without discharging the primary obligation to advise the client “may amount to professional misconduct, warranting consideration by the appropriate disciplinary authority.”
That said, the Bench held that the failure of counsel to file a cross-appeal cannot preclude the court from exercising its powers under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC in exceptional cases. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in N.K.V. Brothers (P) Ltd. v. Karumai Ammal, AIR 1980 SCC 1354, for the proposition that Tribunals must take special care to ensure innocent victims do not suffer due to technicalities. It also relied on Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, where the Supreme Court held that compensation can be awarded in excess of the amount claimed, and the court is duty-bound to award just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Bench further cited the Supreme Court's three-judge bench decision in Surekha v. Santosh, (2021) 16 SCC 467, which found fault with a High Court for not enhancing compensation in the absence of a cross-objection when an insurance company had appealed.
The Bench described Kathiresan's condition in detail. He was 26 years old at the time of the accident and had been employed as a JCB driver. Post-accident, he cannot affix his signature. He is wholly bedridden, with paraplegia affecting both limbs, dependent on artificial feeding through a tracheostomy or nasal tube, and requires continuous attendant assistance even for basic bodily functions. Photographic evidence (Ex.P23) was on record. The Bench described his condition as one where “the victim breathes, yet does not live in any meaningful sense” — a persistent vegetative state where survival is mechanical but life, in its true sense, is lost.
Recalculation of Compensation
The Bench confirmed the Tribunal's awards under loss of earning power (Rs 27,21,600), medical bills (Rs 4,96,000), transport expenses (Rs 5,000), and extra nourishment (Rs 20,000).
It enhanced or freshly awarded the following heads:
Attendant charges: The Tribunal had awarded Rs 10,000. The Bench fixed monthly attendant charges at Rs 3,500, applied the multiplier method for a remaining span of 70 years (as per the Supreme Court's decision in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413), and calculated the figure as Rs 3,500 × 12 × 44 = Rs 18,48,000. The multiplier of 44 corresponds to the claimant's age of 26 at the time of the accident. The Bench also relied on Kavita v. Deepak, 2012 ACJ 2161; Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210; Rajasthan SRTC v. Alexix Sonier, (2015) 17 SCC 758; Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 166; and Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, (2022) 8 SCC 489.
Pain and suffering: Enhanced from Rs 50,000 to Rs 2,00,000, given the multiple surgeries, continuous treatment, and the fact that Kathiresan can take food only through a nasal tube.
Loss of amenities and inconvenience: Freshly awarded at Rs 2,00,000, given total immobility and loss of matrimonial life.
Future medical expenditure: Freshly awarded at Rs 3,00,000, given the established need for continuous treatment.
The total re-determined compensation is Rs 57,98,000, an enhancement of Rs 24,98,000 over the Tribunal's award of Rs 33,02,600.
On interest, the Bench granted 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of Rs 24,98,000 from the date of the judgment, given that the enhancement was made by the appellate court invoking Order XLI Rule 33 CPC.
Outcome
C.M.A.(MD).No.21 of 2021 (Kathiresan's case) was dismissed with a modification enhancing the award in M.C.O.P. No. 62 of 2015 from Rs 33,02,600 to Rs 57,98,000, with interest at 7.5% on the enhanced amount of Rs 24,98,000 from 1 June 2026. The first respondent in that appeal was directed to pay court fee on the enhanced amount. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation together with applicable interest within the time stipulated by the Tribunal.
C.M.A.(MD).No.181 of 2021 (Sankar's case) was dismissed, confirming the award of Rs 20,000 in M.C.O.P. No. 63 of 2015. There was no order as to costs in either appeal. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.