High Court · 2025

CMA.No.958 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 28.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARCMA No.958 of 2025Jayamurugan ... AppellantVs.1. Shanmuganathan2 . Krishna Murali Gupta3 . National Insurance Company Limited, Karaikal, rep. by its Branch Manager, having office at No.252-A, 1st floor, Bharathiar Road, Karaikal Town & District. ... RespondentsPrayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to enhance the compensation awarded in MCOP No.27 of 2019, dated 14.06.2023 on the file of the Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikkal.For appellant: Mr.K.Varadha KamarajFor Respondents: Mr.N.B.Surekha for third respondent Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 2025JUDGMENT Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the injured/claimant has come before this court by filing the present appeal.2. It is the case of the claimant that he was riding a motorcycle on 06.11.2018 from T.R.Pattinam to Karaikal along Nagore Main Road. When he came near Neravy 1st road, the first respondent, who came in the opposite direction had driven his motorcycle bearing registration NO.UP 93 AD 9914 in a rash and and negligent manner and dashed against the back of the appellant. Hence, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.3. The first and second respondents, who were the driver and owner of the vehicle, remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was contested only by the third respondent, insurer of the offending motorcycle.Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 20254. It was the case of the insurer that the first respondent had driven the vehicle carefully and the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant.5. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent, insured with the third respondent and quantified the compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.3,36,977/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed the present appeal.6. Both the counsel for the appellant and the third respondent have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence and liability and therefore, the facts necessary for fixing negligence and liability have not been considered in the present appeal.7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the accident had occurred in the year 2018 and the claimant suffered disability at 26%, however, the Tribunal granted only a sum of Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 2025Rs.5,000/- per percentage and the same is very much on lower side. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of income during the treatment period is very meager and the same needs enhancement.8. The learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle would submit that the claimant has not produced any evidence to prove the avocation and income of the claimant and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in granting a sum Rs.32,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment. He further submitted that a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards per percentage of disability is reasonable.9. The Tribunal, in its award, observed that the Medical Board examined the claimant and fixed the disability percentage at 28%. However, at the time of quantifying the compensation for disability, the Tribunal had taken disability at 26% only.Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 202510. The learned counsel for the appellant produced certified copy of the disability certificate issued to him by the Medical Board of the Government Hospital, Karaikkal. A perusal of the same would indicate that the disability was fixed at 26% only. Therefore, this court proceeds to award compensation, taking into consideration the disability suffered by the claimant at 26%. The accident had occurred in the year 2018 and hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this court feels that it would be appropriate to fix a sum of Rs.7,000/- per percentage of the disability. Therefore, the appellant/ claimant is entitled to Rs.1,82,000/- (26 x 7000) under the head disability.11. Having regard to the date of accident and the cost of living, this court proceeds to fix notional income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/-. Ex.P5 discharge summary indicates that the claimant suffered fracture in his ankle and un-displaced fracture in 3,4,5 M.T. left foot. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant compensation for three months towards loss of income. Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal for loss of income during treatment period is enhanced to Rs.45,000/-.12. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the various other Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 2025heads are just and reasonable and hence, they are confirmed.13. Accordingly, the revised compensation awarded by this Court is tabulated as under:Sl. NoDescriptionAmount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)Amount awarded by this Court (Rs)Award confirmed or enhanced or granted1.Future loss of earnings1,30,0001,82,000enhanced2.Pain and sufferings20,00020,000confirmed3.Loss of amenities20,00020,000confirmed4.Loss of income32,00045,000enhanced5Attender expenses20,00020,000confirmed6Transport expenses10,00010,000confirmed7Extra nourishment10,00010,000confirmed8Damages to the dress1,0001,000confirmed9.Medical bills93,97793,977confirmed Total3,36,9774,01,977enhanced by Rs.65,00014. With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,36,977- is hereby enhanced to Rs.4,01,977/- together with Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 2025interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.15. The third respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimant shall be permitted to withdraw the compensation amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, by making formal application before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.28.03.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking order: Yes/NoNeutral citation : Yes/NomstToPage 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 20251. The Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikkal.2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.mstCMA No.958 of 202528.03.2025 Page 9 of 9

CMA.No.958 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 28.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARCMA No.958 of 2025Jayamurugan ... AppellantVs.1. Shanmuganathan2 . Krishna Murali Gupta3 . National Insurance Company Limited, Karaikal, rep. by its Branch Manager, having office at No.252-A, 1st floor, Bharathiar Road, Karaikal Town & District. ... RespondentsPrayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to enhance the compensation awarded in MCOP No.27 of 2019, dated 14.06.2023 on the file of the Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikkal.For appellant: Mr.K.Varadha KamarajFor Respondents: Mr.N.B.Surekha for third respondent Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 2025JUDGMENT Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the injured/claimant has come before this court by filing the present appeal.2. It is the case of the claimant that he was riding a motorcycle on 06.11.2018 from T.R.Pattinam to Karaikal along Nagore Main Road. When he came near Neravy 1st road, the first respondent, who came in the opposite direction had driven his motorcycle bearing registration NO.UP 93 AD 9914 in a rash and and negligent manner and dashed against the back of the appellant. Hence, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.3. The first and second respondents, who were the driver and owner of the vehicle, remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was contested only by the third respondent, insurer of the offending motorcycle.Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 20254. It was the case of the insurer that the first respondent had driven the vehicle carefully and the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant.5. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent, insured with the third respondent and quantified the compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.3,36,977/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed the present appeal.6. Both the counsel for the appellant and the third respondent have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence and liability and therefore, the facts necessary for fixing negligence and liability have not been considered in the present appeal.7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the accident had occurred in the year 2018 and the claimant suffered disability at 26%, however, the Tribunal granted only a sum of Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 2025Rs.5,000/- per percentage and the same is very much on lower side. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of income during the treatment period is very meager and the same needs enhancement.8. The learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle would submit that the claimant has not produced any evidence to prove the avocation and income of the claimant and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in granting a sum Rs.32,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment. He further submitted that a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards per percentage of disability is reasonable.9. The Tribunal, in its award, observed that the Medical Board examined the claimant and fixed the disability percentage at 28%. However, at the time of quantifying the compensation for disability, the Tribunal had taken disability at 26% only.Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 202510. The learned counsel for the appellant produced certified copy of the disability certificate issued to him by the Medical Board of the Government Hospital, Karaikkal. A perusal of the same would indicate that the disability was fixed at 26% only. Therefore, this court proceeds to award compensation, taking into consideration the disability suffered by the claimant at 26%. The accident had occurred in the year 2018 and hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this court feels that it would be appropriate to fix a sum of Rs.7,000/- per percentage of the disability. Therefore, the appellant/ claimant is entitled to Rs.1,82,000/- (26 x 7000) under the head disability.11. Having regard to the date of accident and the cost of living, this court proceeds to fix notional income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/-. Ex.P5 discharge summary indicates that the claimant suffered fracture in his ankle and un-displaced fracture in 3,4,5 M.T. left foot. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant compensation for three months towards loss of income. Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal for loss of income during treatment period is enhanced to Rs.45,000/-.12. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the various other Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 2025heads are just and reasonable and hence, they are confirmed.13. Accordingly, the revised compensation awarded by this Court is tabulated as under:Sl. NoDescriptionAmount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)Amount awarded by this Court (Rs)Award confirmed or enhanced or granted1.Future loss of earnings1,30,0001,82,000enhanced2.Pain and sufferings20,00020,000confirmed3.Loss of amenities20,00020,000confirmed4.Loss of income32,00045,000enhanced5Attender expenses20,00020,000confirmed6Transport expenses10,00010,000confirmed7Extra nourishment10,00010,000confirmed8Damages to the dress1,0001,000confirmed9.Medical bills93,97793,977confirmed Total3,36,9774,01,977enhanced by Rs.65,00014. With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,36,977- is hereby enhanced to Rs.4,01,977/- together with Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 2025interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.15. The third respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimant shall be permitted to withdraw the compensation amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, by making formal application before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.28.03.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking order: Yes/NoNeutral citation : Yes/NomstToPage 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 20251. The Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikkal.2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.958 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.mstCMA No.958 of 202528.03.2025 Page 9 of 9