✦ High Court of India · 07 Mar 2025

Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 07 Mar 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

07 Mar 2025

Bench

S.SOUNTHAR

Length

2,476 words

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Motor Vehicles Act 1988

C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 2025claimants in C.M.A.Nos.585, 684 and 683 of 2025 as Rs.9,89,360/-, Rs.10,31,000/- and Rs.7,67,500/- respectively. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads to the claimants extracted hereunder:-Heads of compensationMCOP No.216/2023MCOP No.215/2023MCOP No.214/2023Future loss of earning capacity/DisabilityRs.6,82,000/-Rs.1,92,500/-Rs.3,00,000/-Loss of income / income to parents-Rs.28,500/-Rs.20,000/-Pain and sufferingRs.70,000/-Rs.50,000/--Transportation expensesRs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-Additional nourishmentRs.10,000/-Rs.10,000/-Rs.10,000/-Damages to the clothesRs.1,500/-Rs.1,500/-Rs.1,500/-Loss of amenitiesRs.50,000/-Rs.50,000/--Medical BillsRs.3,83,200/-Rs.6,58,500/-Rs.4,21,000/-Future medical expensesRs.25,000/-Rs.25,000/-TotalNegligence of the petitioner is fixed as 20% Rs.12,36,700x20/100-Rs.2,47,340/- Rs.12,36,700/-Rs.9,89,360/-Rs.10,31,000/-Rs.7,67,500/-Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, the claimants have come before this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that while applying multiplier method for calculating the compensation under the head disability for the claimant in C.M.A.No.585 of 4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 20252025, the Tribunal fixed the notional income only at Rs.1,20,800/- per annum and the same is on lower side. Hence, the compensation payable to the claimant requires enhancement. The learned counsel also submits that amount awarded under the head pain and suffering and transportation charges etc., are on lower side. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing contributory negligence of 20% on the claimant in C.M.A.No.585 of 2025, who had driven the two wheeler. 7. As far as claimant in C.M.A.No.684 of 2025 is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the amount of Rs.5,500/- fixed per percentage of disability is on lower side considering the date of accident and hence, it requires enhancement. As far as minor claimant in C.M.A.No.683 of 2025 is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards pain and suffering and attender charges. 8. The Tribunal fixed 20% contributory negligence on the rider of the two wheeler/claimant in C.M.A.No.585 of 2025 only on the ground that he had allowed two other persons to travel in the bike violating the Motor 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 2025Vehicles Act, 1988. In Mohammed Siddique and another vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 161 (SC), the Apex Court has categorically held that merely because three persons travelled in a two wheeler that by itself cannot be treated as an act of negligence unless there is positive evidence to show that the said act contributed to the accident. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant observation of the Apex Court in the above mentioned judgment which reads as follows:-“13. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a Motorcycle along with the Driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of Contributory Negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the Driver of a Two-wheeled Motorcycle, not to carry more than one person on the Motorcycle. Section 194-C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for Motorcycle Drivers and Pillion Riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a Pillion Rider on a Motorcycle along with the Driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a 6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 2025violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of Contributory Negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. ... ... ... ...”9. In the case on hand, based on evidence of PW.1 and contents of FIR, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car belonged to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. There is no positive evidence to suggest that merely because three persons travelled in the two wheeler the accident had occurred. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in fixing 20% contributory negligence on the rider of the two wheeler. Accordingly, the said finding is set aside. 10. As far as the claimant in C.M.A.No.585 of 2025 is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.1,20,800/- per annum which means the monthly notional income is at Rs.10,066/-. The accident had occurred on 07.12.2022. Having regard to the date of accident and the cost of living, this Court feels it would be appropriate to fix the notional income at Rs.18,000/- 7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 2025per month. In that case, the claimant is entitled to Rs.12,28,500/- (18,000 x 1.25 x 12 x 13 x 35/100).11. The Medical Board, which examined the claimant in C.M.A.No.585 of 2025 issued Disability Certificate marked as Ex.C3 fixing partial permanent disability at 65%. The Medical Board fixed the disability only for the right knee of the injured. Therefore, the same was converted into whole body and Tribunal fixed the functional disability at 35%. The said finding is confirmed.12. The amount of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is slightly on higher side. When multiplier method was applied, the claimant is entitled to only nominal amount to the conventional heads like pain and sufferings and loss of amenities etc. Though the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and sufferings is slightly on higher side. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same by taking into consideration no amount has been awarded towards attender charges. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads are confirmed. The total amount payable to the claimant in C.M.A.No.585 of 8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 20252025 is enhanced Rs.17,83,200/-.13. As far as the claimant in C.M.A.No.684 of 2025 is concerned, as per the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board marked as Ex.C2, the disability was fixed at 35%. The Tribunal granted only Rs.5,500/- per percentage of disability. Taking into consideration the year of accident, this Court feels it would be appropriate to grant Rs.9,000/- per percentage of disability. In that case, the amount payable to the claimant under the head disability will be Rs.3,15,000/- (35 x Rs.9,000/-).14. As far as the loss of income during treatment period is concerned, the Tribunal granted only a sum of Rs.9,500/- for three months. Taking into consideration the year of accident, this Court is inclined to fix Rs.18,000/- per month as notional income. For three months, the claimant is entitled to Rs.54,000/- towards loss of income. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is slightly on higher side. However, no amount has been awarded for attender charges. Therefore, the said amount is confirmed. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under various other head like Transportation Expenses, Additional Nourishment, Damages to the 9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 2025clothes, Loss of Amenities, Medical Bills, Future Medical Expenses are reasonable and hence, the same are confirmed. In all the amount payable to the claimant in C.M.A.No.684 of 2025 is enhanced to Rs.11,79,000/-. 15. As far as minor claimant in C.M.A.No.683 of 2025 is concerned, as per Ex.C1-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, the disability was fixed at 30%. The Tribunal following the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC 338, granted compensation at Rs.3,00,000/- under the head disability and the same is in accordance with law declared by the Apex Court and the same is confirmed. The relevant portion reads as follows:-“12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure towards treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10 percent and upto 30 percent to the whole body, Rs.3,00,000; upto 60 percent, 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 2025Rs.4,00,000/- upto 90 percent, Rs.5,00,000/- and above 90 percent, it should be Rs.6,00,000/-. For permanent disability upto 10 percent, it should be Rs.1,00,000/-, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick.”16. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of income to parents. Taking into consideration the minor claimant was in hospital for 8 days, this Court feels the amount payable to the parents towards inconvenience caused to them/loss of income during treatment period etc., has been enhanced to Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads are reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed. In all the claimant in C.M.A.No.683 of 2025 is entitled to Rs.7,77,500/-.17. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified as follows:-Sl.No.DescriptionCompensation awarded by the TribunalCompensation awarded by this CourtMCOP No.216/2023(in Rupees)MCOP No.215/2023(in Rupees)MCOP No.214/2023(in Rupees)C.M.A.No. 585/2025(in Rupees)C.M.A.No.684/2025(in Rupees)C.M.A.No.683/2025(in Rupees)1Future loss of earning capacity/Disability6,82,0001,92,5003,00,00012,28,5003,15,0003,00,00011/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 2025Sl.No.DescriptionCompensation awarded by the TribunalCompensation awarded by this CourtMCOP No.216/2023(in Rupees)MCOP No.215/2023(in Rupees)MCOP No.214/2023(in Rupees)C.M.A.No. 585/2025(in Rupees)C.M.A.No.684/2025(in Rupees)C.M.A.No.683/2025(in Rupees)2Loss of income / income to parents-28,50020,000-54,00030,0003Pain and suffering70,00050,000-70,00050,000-4Transportation expenses15,00015,00015,00015,00015,00015,0005Additional nourishment10,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,0006Damages to the clothes1,5001,5001,5001,5001,5001,5007Loss of amenities50,00050,000-50,00050,000-8Medical Bills3,83,2006,58,5004,21,0003,83,2006,58,5004,21,0009Future medical expenses25,00025,00025,00025,000-10Negligence of the petitioner is fixed as 20% Rs.12,36,700 x 20/100-Rs.2,47,340/- 2,47,340/---Set aside--Total9,89,36010,31,0007,67,50017,83,20011,79,0007,77,50018. In view of the discussions made earlier, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,83,200/-, Rs.11,79,000/- and Rs.7,77,500/- from Rs.9,89,360, Rs.10,31,000/- and Rs.7,67,500/-. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount of Rs.17,83,200/-, Rs.11,79,000/- and Rs.7,77,500/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petitions to the date of realisation, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of M.C.O.P.Nos.216, 215 and 214 of 2023 respectively on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 2025Krishnagiri, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this common judgment. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants in C.M.A.Nos.585 and 684 of 2025 are permitted to withdraw their respective award amount by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.19. As far as the minor claimant in C.M.A.No.683 of 2025 is concerned, the guardian is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.4,77,500/- by making formal application before the Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded towards disability shall be deposited in anyone of the Nationalized Banks under a Fixed Deposit Scheme for a period of three years which would be renewed periodically until she attains majority and the guardian of the minor claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon in the said Fixed Deposit Account once in three months.20. It is seen from the award passed by the Tribunal that pay and recovery has been ordered in favour of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company on the ground that offending vehicle did not possess Fitness Certificate on the date of accident. The said finding rendered by the Tribunal 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 2025is confirmed. 21. In the result, all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed. No costs. 07.03.2025Index:Yes / NoSpeaking order:Yes / NoNeutral Citation:Yes / Nodm14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 2025To 1.The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri. 2.Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co., Ltd., No.49/1B, Devakrishna Square, 3rd floor, Katpadi Main Road, Viruthampet, Vellore 632 006.3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.dmC.M.A.Nos.683, 684 and 585 of 202507.03.2025 16/16

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Motor Vehicle Act 1988