NEW DELHI: The Madras High Court has nearly doubled the compensation awarded to a man left permanently bedridden and unresponsive after two road accidents, increasing the amount from ₹33.02 lakh to ₹57.98 lakh while strongly criticising his lawyer for failing to pursue a higher compensation claim.
A division bench comprising N. Anand Venkatesh and K. K. Ramakrishnan invoked its suo motu powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enhance the award, holding that the original compensation was inadequate given the devastating injuries suffered by the victim.
Two Accidents, Life-Altering Injuries
The case relates to Kathiresan, who was injured in two separate road accidents on December 5, 2014.
According to court records, Kathiresan was travelling in a Chevrolet car on the Ramanatham National Highway when an Eicher van collided with the vehicle, causing injuries. He was initially admitted to a government hospital and was later being transported to a private hospital in a Maruti ambulance for further treatment.
During that journey, the ambulance was struck by an omnibus travelling in the opposite direction. The court found that the second collision, allegedly caused by the rash and negligent driving of the omnibus driver, resulted in severe spinal cord injuries that permanently altered Kathiresan’s life.
His father, Sankar, who was travelling in the ambulance, also sustained injuries.
Court Describes Victim’s Condition
In its judgment, the court gave a poignant description of Kathiresan’s condition, noting that he remains alive but incapable of meaningful interaction with the world around him.
“The victim breathes, yet does not live in any meaningful sense. Consciousness has receded into silence — he neither perceives nor responds to the world around him,” the bench observed.
The court further noted that he had been reduced to a state of total dependency, describing his existence as one marked by prolonged suffering and loss of dignity.
Insurance Company’s Appeal Rejected
Both father and son had filed compensation claims before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Tirunelveli.
The tribunal awarded Kathiresan ₹33.02 lakh and Sankar ₹20,000 in compensation. It held that the grievous spinal injuries were sustained in the second accident and fixed liability on United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the ambulance.
The insurance company challenged the award before the High Court, arguing that the spinal injuries had actually been caused by the first accident and that it should not be held liable.
The court rejected this argument, concluding that the first accident had caused only simple injuries and that the catastrophic spinal damage occurred exclusively in the second collision.
Sharp Criticism of Victim’s Lawyer
Although the victim’s counsel requested an enhancement of compensation during the appeal proceedings, no cross-appeal or cross-objection had been filed seeking a higher award.
The court expressed strong displeasure over this omission, stating that lawyers have a duty to protect their clients’ interests and advise them appropriately regarding available legal remedies.
“Once an advocate enters appearance on behalf of a party, particularly in appellate proceedings, he assumes the role of a trustee of the client’s interests,” the bench observed.
The judges said that failure to advise a severely injured claimant about filing a cross-appeal or cross-objection could amount to a serious professional lapse and, in appropriate cases, may even warrant disciplinary scrutiny.
Court Steps In to Prevent Injustice
Despite the procedural lapse, the court ruled that the victim should not suffer because of his lawyer’s failure.
“In such a heartrending situation, this Court cannot remain a passive or mute spectator,” the bench said.
Using its extraordinary powers, the court enhanced the compensation to ₹57.98 lakh and directed that the enhanced amount would carry interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the judgment.
The ruling underscores the court’s willingness to intervene proactively in exceptional cases to ensure that victims of catastrophic injuries receive just compensation, even where procedural shortcomings might otherwise stand in the way.
