NEW DELHI: The Madras high court has nearly doubled the motor accident compensation for a man left completely bedridden and unresponsive after two road accidents, while sharply criticising his advocate for failing to seek enhanced compensation on his behalf.A bench comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan enhanced the compensation from Rs 33,02,600 to Rs 57,98,000, invoking its suo motu powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after finding that the earlier award was wholly inadequate given the nature of the injuries caused by the accident.What was the dispute aboutOn the night of December 5, 2014, Kathiresan was travelling in a Chevrolet car on the Ramanatham National Highway when an Eicher van dashed against it, causing him injuries. He was then admitted to a government hospital, but later the arrangements were made to shift him to a private hospital for further treatment.While being transported to the private hospital, his Maruti ambulance was hit by an omnibus coming from the opposite direction, allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving of the omnibus driver. It was in this second accident that Kathiresan suffered grievous spinal cord injuries. His father Sankar, who was also travelling in the ambulance, was injured in the same accident.The cumulative impact of the injuries left Kathiresan bedridden and in a completely unresponsive state.“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 court said.“What remains is not a life of dignity, but a silent existence suspended between being and non-being. Reduced to skin and bones, his body bears the cruel imprint of prolonged suffering,” it further added.Both father and son filed separate claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli. The tribunal awarded Kathiresan a total compensation of Rs 33,02,600, holding that the grievous spinal injuries were sustained in the second accident and fastening liability on United India Insurance, the insurer of the ambulance. The father was also awarded Rs 20,000 as compensation.Aggrieved by this award, the insurance company challenged it before the Madras high court, arguing that the spinal injuries were caused in the first accident, not the second, and therefore liability could not be fastened upon it.The court rejected this contention entirely, finding that the first accident had resulted only in simple injuries and that the spinal cord damage was caused solely in the second accident.The victim’s counsel raised enhancement as a submission before the high court but no cross-appeal or cross-objection had been filed and the court criticised this in their judgement.“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. It is incumbent upon him to scrutinize 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 court observed.“The failure to provide such essential advice, especially in cases involving severely injured claimants, amounts to a dereliction of professional duty… Such inaction, in appropriate cases, may amount to professional misconduct, warranting consideration by the appropriate disciplinary authority,” it further added.However, the court it made clear that the lawyer’s failure could not come at the victim’s expense. “In such a heartrending situation, this Court cannot remain a passive or mute spectator,” it said, proceeding to enhance the compensation suo motu.The court then enhanced the total compensation from Rs 33,02,600 to Rs 57,98,000, with interest at 7.5 per cent on the enhanced amount from the date of judgment.
