Madras High Court Grants Over ₹57 Lakh Compensation To Accident Victim, Says Lawyer 'Failed In His Duty' By Not Pursuing Enhancement Plea

The Madras High Court recently enhanced compensation for a man who was left in a persistent vegetative state following a road accident. Noting the advocate's failure to appeal for enhanced compensation, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that once an advocate enters appearance for a client, he is expected to offer proper legal advice, including necessity of filing cross-appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of compensation whenever required. The court added that the advocate's failure to provide proper legal advise is dereliction of duty.In the present case the court noted the counsel's submission that while no cross appeal for enhancement of compensation was filed however court can grant just compensation. "Though no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, it is contended that this Court is empowered to grant just compensation by invoking Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 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 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 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,” the court said. It further observed that there was a growing tendency to rely solely on the Court's power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, without discharging the primary obligation to advise and act in the client's best interest, which is a matter of serious concern. It also said that such inaction, in appropriate cases, may amount to professional misconduct, warranting consideration by the appropriate disciplinary authority. "Therefore this Court finds total lack of the professional responsibility cast upon learned counsel appearing for injured claimant," it added. The court was hearing appeals filed by United India Insurance Company against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli, ordering it to pay compensation to a son and father who were injured in a road accident. While the son was travelling in his car on December 5, 2014, an Eicher van overtook him and dashed against the car resulting in injuries. The son was admitted in the Government hospital, and later arrangements were made to shift him to a private hospital. While he was being transported to the private hospital in the ambulance, it met with an accident with an omnibus due to the rash and negligent driving of the omnibus. This second accident resulted in injuries to both son and father. The son sustained grievous injuries to spinal cord and became bedridden. The tribunal awarded Rs 33,02,600 compensation to the son and Rs 20,000 compensation to the father. The liability was fastened upon United India Insurance Company, which was the insurer of the vehicle involved in the second accident. Challenging this, the company had preferred the appeals. The company argued that the permanent disability was not independently due to the second accident. It was argued that the second accident had merely aggravated the pre-existing injuries. The company thus argued that liability should have been fastened upon the insurer of the vehicle involved in the first accident. The claimants, however, submitted that the spinal cord injuries were a direct result of the second accident, which had led to catastrophic consequences. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the claimant submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal was inadequate and even in the absence of cross-objection, the court was empowered to enhance compensation by invoking provisions under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC. Upon perusal of the documentary and oral evidence, the court was satisfied that the injuries sustained in the first accident were only simple in nature and the grievous injuries were sustained in the second accident, which had left the claimant bed-ridden. Thus, the court held that the liability had to be fastened upon the appellant insurance company. With respect to compensation, the court held that the counsel for the claimant had failed in his duty by not pursuing appropriate remedy for...

Madras High Court Grants Over ₹57 Lakh Compensation To Accident Victim, Says Lawyer 'Failed In His Duty' By Not Pursuing Enhancement Plea

Upasana Sajeev

HC: Failure to provide essential advice, in cases involving severely injured claimants, amounts to 'Dereliction of Professional Duty'

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Madras High Court Grants Over ₹57 Lakh Compensation To Accident Victim, Says Lawyer 'Failed In His Duty' By Not Pursuing Enhancement Plea

Upasana Sajeev

HC: Failure to provide essential advice, in cases involving severely injured claimants, amounts to 'Dereliction of Professional Duty'

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers