Escaped first crash, paralysed in second on way to hospital: Court awards man Rs 58 lakh compensation

Justices N Anand Venkatesh and K K Ramakrishnan noted that what remains of the man’s life is not dignity, but a silent existence suspended between being and non-being.

“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. His eyes may open, but they do not recognize; his body endures, but it does not function with purpose or dignity. The victim lives, but the essence of life has ebbed away. He is awake, yet devoid of awareness; his heart beats, but it carries no expression of emotion. His eyes may flicker open, yet they do not recognize, do not follow, do not respond,” the court said June 1.

The insurer had challenged the tribunal’s finding that it was liable to compensate the victims for injuries suffered in the second accident involving an ambulance.

Pain constant companion: Court

• What remains is not a life of dignity, but a silent existence suspended between being and non-being, the court observed.
• Reduced to skin and bones, his body bears the cruel imprint of prolonged suffering.
• The muscles have withered, strength has deserted him, and each bone now presses painfully against his fragile frame.
• Pain has not merely visited him, it has become his constant companion, draining both body and spirit.
• He exists in a vegetative state, where survival is mechanical, but life, in its true sense, is lost.
• Prolonged suffering has emaciated his frame. The loss of muscle, the frailty of his body, and the constant state of pain have rendered him wholly dependent.
• What remains is not life in its true sense, but a condition of helpless endurance, commonly described in medical terms as a persistent vegetative state.

How 2 accidents within hours changed a life

The case arose from a chain of events that unfolded on the night of December 5, 2014. Kathiresan was travelling in a Chevrolet car on the Ramanatham National Highway when the vehicle was allegedly hit by an Eicher van.

The collision left him injured, and he was admitted to the Government Hospital in Perambalur. As doctors arranged for his transfer to a private hospital for advanced treatment, he was placed in an ambulance.

During the journey in the early hours of December 6, 2014, the ambulance collided with an omnibus in a second accident. Kathiresan’s father Sankar, who was accompanying him, also suffered injuries in the crash.

While the first accident caused only simple injuries, the second collision resulted in catastrophic spinal cord damage that permanently altered Kathiresan’s life, according to the court’s findings.

Tribunal fixed liability on second vehicle’s insurer

Kathiresan subsequently approached the MACT seeking Rs 70 lakh in compensation, while his father sought Rs 5 lakh for the injuries he sustained.

After examining the evidence, the tribunal concluded that the major injuries, including the spinal cord damage that rendered Kathiresan bedridden, were caused by the second accident involving the ambulance. It awarded him Rs 33.02 lakh and granted Sankar Rs 20,000 in compensation.

United India Insurance Company challenged the award before the high court, arguing that the devastating spinal injury had actually occurred in the first accident and that the second accident merely aggravated the existing condition.

Court rejects insurance company’s argument

• The high court examined the medical records, witness testimony and other evidence before rejecting the insurer’s stand.
• The court noted that medical records from the first accident reflected only simple injuries and contained no indication of spinal cord trauma.
• The judges found that Kathiresan had consistently explained that a reference to spinal injury in the first accident had been inserted by mistake in his proof affidavit and that this explanation was supported by medical evidence.
• The appellant’s contention that no injury was sustained in the second accident is “wholly untenable”, the bench observed while affirming the tribunal’s conclusion that the life-altering spinal injury occurred in the second crash.

Sharp rebuke for claimant’s lawyer

• This court is constrained to observe that the learned counsel who represented the claimant before this court has failed in his duty in not pursuing appropriate proceedings for enhancement of compensation, particularly in a case involving such grave and permanent disability.
• In matters concerning motor accident victims, it is incumbent upon counsel to take all necessary steps to secure just and adequate compensation.
• Once an advocate enters an appearance on behalf of a party, particularly in appellate proceedings, he assumes the role of a trustee of the client’s interests.
• It is incumbent upon him to scrutinise the record and offer proper legal advice, including the necessity of filing a cross-appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of compensation where warranted.
• The failure to provide such essential advice, especially in cases involving severely injured claimants, amounts to a dereliction of professional duty.
• The legal profession, being a noble one, demands diligence, competence, and commitment to the client’s cause.
• A growing tendency to rely solely on the court’s power without discharging the primary obligation to advise and act in the client’s best interest, is a matter of serious concern.
• Such inaction, in appropriate cases, may amount to professional misconduct, warranting consideration by the appropriate disciplinary authority.
• Therefore, this court finds a total lack of professional responsibility cast upon learned counsel appearing for the injured claimant.

‘Court cannot remain a passive spectator’

Despite the absence of a cross-appeal, the court decided to exercise its powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure that the victim received just compensation.

The court took note of photographs and medical evidence showing Kathiresan’s present condition.

Before the accident, he worked as a JCB driver and earned his livelihood independently. Today, he remains bedridden, paralysed, dependent on attendants for every basic need and requires feeding through a nasal tube.

The court recorded that he had undergone prolonged treatment at several hospitals but had shown no meaningful recovery. “In such a heartrending situation, this Court cannot remain a passive or mute spectator. Therefore, notwithstanding such failure on the part of counsel, this Court is duty-bound to ensure that substantive justice is not defeated,” said the court.

Compensation enhanced by Rs 25 lakh

• After reassessing the case, the high court substantially enhanced the compensation.
• The court retained the amount awarded for loss of earning capacity and medical expenses but significantly increased attendant charges, recognising that Kathiresan would require lifelong assistance.
• Attendant charges were increased from Rs 10,000 to Rs 18.48 lakh. Compensation for pain and suffering was enhanced from Rs 50,000 to Rs 2 lakh.
• The bench also awarded Rs 2 lakh towards loss of amenities and inconvenience, and Rs 3 lakh towards future medical expenses.
• As a result, the total compensation payable to Kathiresan was increased from Rs 33.02 lakh to Rs 57.98 lakh.
• The court also directed payment of interest at 7.5 per cent on the enhanced amount of Rs 24.98 lakh from the date of judgment.

Appeals dismissed

The high court dismissed the insurance company’s appeal relating to Kathiresan’s claim and confirmed the tribunal’s award in favour of Sankar.

It directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced compensation together with the applicable interest within the period stipulated by the tribunal.

Significant ruling for accident victims

Beyond the enhanced compensation, the judgment underscores a broader principle governing motor accident claims: Courts are not bound by procedural technicalities when confronted with overwhelming evidence of suffering.

By enhancing the compensation despite the absence of a cross-appeal, the high court reaffirmed that the objective of the Motor Vehicles Act is to secure “just compensation” and ensure that victims of catastrophic accidents are not left without adequate relief because of procedural lapses or professional omissions.

For Kathiresan, whose life changed forever during a journey that was supposed to take him to safety and treatment, the ruling represents a measure of recognition of the devastating loss he has endured for more than a decade.