Tribunal’s assessment of 100% functional disability for amputee coolie worker upheld against contributory negligence claims.

On 26.07.2021 at 19:00 hours, the claimant Senthilkumar Narayanasamy was riding his Hero Honda motorcycle (TN 42 X 4036) on the Dhally–Udumalai road near Thinaikulam Indira Nagar when the driver of a Mahindra Maxx Pickup (TN 42 4615), driving rashly and negligently, dashed against the bike, causing grievous injuries.

The claimant, a Coolie worker, suffered amputation of his right leg, and the Medical Board assessed 100% functional disability.

The claimant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1–P10; the Medical Board disability certificates were marked as Exs.C1 & C2; the insurer marked only the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report (Ex.R1).

The Tribunal found negligence against the insured driver, upheld third-party liability, but—because the vehicle lacked a valid fitness certificate on the accident date—directed the insurer to "pay and recover" from the owner.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing negligence on the insured driver absent any eyewitness, and whether 20% contributory negligence ought to have been attributed to the injured based on the alcohol notation in the Wound Certificate.

2. Whether the Tribunal's computation of compensation—multiplier 14, notional income of Rs.12,500/month with 25% future prospects, totalling Rs.32,29,265/- for a 44-year-old with 100% functional disability—was just, fair, and proper.

The Court applied the statutory framework of motor accident third-party compensation, affirming the principle that an insurer cannot deny compensation in respect of third-party claims and, where a breach of policy conditions exists (here, absence of a valid fitness certificate), the appropriate course is the pay-and-recovery direction against the owner rather than exoneration of the insurer.

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC)], which mandates addition of 25% toward future prospects for claimants aged 40–50 years.

On the negligence issue, the Court accepted the Tribunal's evidentiary finding—based on the claimant's testimony (PW1), documentary exhibits, and the Tribunal's appreciation—that the insured driver caused the accident through rash and negligent driving, and declined to disturb the finding despite the absence of an eyewitness.

As the claimant was a Coolie worker, monthly income was notionally fixed at Rs.12,500/-, enhanced by 25% (Rs.3,125/-) toward future prospects per Pranay Sethi, yielding annual loss of Rs.1,87,500/- × 14 = Rs.26,25,000/-.

Considering the 100% functional disability, leg amputation extinguishing his livelihood, medical expenses, costs of fitting and replacing the artificial limb, attender charges, and allied conventional heads, the Court held the total award of Rs.32,29,265/- to be "just, fair and proper," finding no reason to interfere.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.17075 of 2026) was also dismissed.