High Court · 2025
Case Details
CMA No. 2029 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICMA No. 2029 of 2025MuruganandamAppellantVs1. P.J.Rajesh2.The Branch ManagerThe New India Assurance Company Ltd., II Floor, Raman Cetnre, Ravipuram, Valanjambavam, Cochin, Kerala.RespondentsPRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Sec.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/the Sub Judge at Nagapattinam in MCOP.No. 66 of 2018 and to allow this appealFor Appellant:Mr.S.Thamizh PoonkuilmozhiFor Respondents:Mr. J. Chandran For R21/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025JUDGMENTThe appellant/petitioner not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP No.66 of 2018, dated 25.02.2020 has preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.2. The case of appellant/petitioner is that on 21.05.2017 at about 03.00 hrs., when the petitioner was riding his two wheeler bearing Regn. No. TN-51 AD-9355 from Manakkudi Nagapattinam-Thiruthuraipoondi ECR Road, near Alankudi bridge, at that time, a bus bearing Regn. No. KL-39-L-1777 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the petitioner's motorcycle and caused an accident. Due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, for which he underwent treatment in the hospital. Under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.3.The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent. Having come to such a conclusion, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation payable at Rs.1,04,000/- under various heads as follows:2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025S.NoCompensation awarded under the headAmount(in Rs.)1.Permanent disability48,0002.Medical expenditure5,0003.Transportation5,0004.Loss of income15,0005.Pain and sufferings15,0006.Extra nourishment10,0007.Attender charges6,000Total compensation awarded (by adding Sl. Nos. 1 to 7)1,04,0004.The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.5.The petitioner not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed the present appeal before this Court seeking for enhancement of compensation. 6. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that at the time of accident, he was aged about 45 years and though the accident was happened in the year 2017, the tribunal had fixed only a sum of Rs.3000/- per percentage of disability. He would also submit that the petitioner is a Mridangam player, thereby he earned a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. But, without considering the 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025same, the tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs.7500/- towards notional monthly income. He would further submit that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was not able to move outside and nearly about six months, he was not able to attend his avocation. Hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation.7. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent would submit that the accident was happened in the year 2017 and he had sustained 16% of disability, for which the tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- towards per percentage of disability. He would also submit that on considering the injuries as well as treatment period, the learned Tribunal rightly fixed two months for loss of income, which needs no interference of this court. He would further submit that he was a Mridangam player. Considering that, the tribunal had rightly fixed his income as Rs.7500/-, which needs no interference.8. Heard and considered rival submissions made by both learned counsel for appellant as well as 2nd respondent and perused materials available on record. 9. Considering both side submissions, the fact reveals that admittedly, he had suffered with 16% of permanent disability, for which the tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.3000/- per percentage. But, on considering the 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025petitioner's age of 45 years and the fact that the accident was happened in the year 2017 and also the fact that the appellant had sustained 16% of permanent disability, this court is inclined to enhance the sum awarded towards percentage of disability from Rs.5000/- to Rs.7000/-.10. Furthermore, on perusal of award, it reveals that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had sustained 16% of permanent disability, as a result of which, he was not able to move outside and nearly about six months, he was not able to attend his avocation. However, by relying the discharge summary, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent would also submit that only 11 days, he is in hospital, but on seeing the grievous injury as well as considering his permanent disability, this Court is inclined to modify the period for loss of income as six months. 11. On further perusal of record, the fact reveals that the petitioner is a Mridangam player, thereby he earned a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. But, without considering the same, the tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.7500/- towards notional monthly income. However, considering his age and the accident was happened in the year 2017 and also considering the cost of living at that time, this court is inclined to enhance the sum awarded towards notional monthly income from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.15,000/-. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 202512. Considering the fact that during the treatment period, the petitioner incurred huge expenses towards transportation, for which the tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/-, which is very meagre one. Hence, this court is inclined to enhance the transport charges from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- . On perusal of discharge summary, the fact reveals that he had sustained 16% of permanent disability, due to which he had sustained severe pain and he is unable to do his work as before. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the sum awarded towards pain and sufferings from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. 13. As he had suffered with permanent disability, he was in need of more nourishment. Hence, this Court is inclined to enhance the sum awarded towards extra nourishment from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The compensation that has been fixed under the other heads are reasonable and does not require the interference of this Court.14.In the light of the above discussion, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified as follows:6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025S.NoCompensation awarded under the headAmount awarded by the tribunal(in Rs.)Amount(in Rs.)Amount confirmed or granted or enhanced1.Permanent disability(Rs.7,000 x 16% ) 48,0001,12,000enhanced2.Medical expenses5,0005,000confirmed3.Transportation5,00010,000enhanced4.Loss of income(Rs.15,000 x 6)15,00090,000enhanced5.Pain and sufferings15,00030,000enhanced6.Extra nourishment10,00015,000enhanced7. Attender charges6,0006,000enhancedTotal1,04,0002,68,000enhanced15.The compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.1,04,000/- is enhanced to Rs.2,68,000/-. The 2nd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced award amount now determined by this court along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. Insofar as the enhanced compensation is concerned, the deficit court fee, if not paid, shall be paid by the appellant. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 202516.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.12-08-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NorppTo1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Nagapattinam. 2. Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025T.V.THAMILSELVI J.rppCMA No. 2029 of 2025 12-08-20259/9
CMA No. 2029 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICMA No. 2029 of 2025MuruganandamAppellantVs1. P.J.Rajesh2.The Branch ManagerThe New India Assurance Company Ltd., II Floor, Raman Cetnre, Ravipuram, Valanjambavam, Cochin, Kerala.RespondentsPRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Sec.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/the Sub Judge at Nagapattinam in MCOP.No. 66 of 2018 and to allow this appealFor Appellant:Mr.S.Thamizh PoonkuilmozhiFor Respondents:Mr. J. Chandran For R21/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025JUDGMENTThe appellant/petitioner not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP No.66 of 2018, dated 25.02.2020 has preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.2. The case of appellant/petitioner is that on 21.05.2017 at about 03.00 hrs., when the petitioner was riding his two wheeler bearing Regn. No. TN-51 AD-9355 from Manakkudi Nagapattinam-Thiruthuraipoondi ECR Road, near Alankudi bridge, at that time, a bus bearing Regn. No. KL-39-L-1777 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the petitioner's motorcycle and caused an accident. Due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, for which he underwent treatment in the hospital. Under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.3.The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent. Having come to such a conclusion, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation payable at Rs.1,04,000/- under various heads as follows:2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025S.NoCompensation awarded under the headAmount(in Rs.)1.Permanent disability48,0002.Medical expenditure5,0003.Transportation5,0004.Loss of income15,0005.Pain and sufferings15,0006.Extra nourishment10,0007.Attender charges6,000Total compensation awarded (by adding Sl. Nos. 1 to 7)1,04,0004.The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.5.The petitioner not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed the present appeal before this Court seeking for enhancement of compensation. 6. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that at the time of accident, he was aged about 45 years and though the accident was happened in the year 2017, the tribunal had fixed only a sum of Rs.3000/- per percentage of disability. He would also submit that the petitioner is a Mridangam player, thereby he earned a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. But, without considering the 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025same, the tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs.7500/- towards notional monthly income. He would further submit that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was not able to move outside and nearly about six months, he was not able to attend his avocation. Hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation.7. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent would submit that the accident was happened in the year 2017 and he had sustained 16% of disability, for which the tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- towards per percentage of disability. He would also submit that on considering the injuries as well as treatment period, the learned Tribunal rightly fixed two months for loss of income, which needs no interference of this court. He would further submit that he was a Mridangam player. Considering that, the tribunal had rightly fixed his income as Rs.7500/-, which needs no interference.8. Heard and considered rival submissions made by both learned counsel for appellant as well as 2nd respondent and perused materials available on record. 9. Considering both side submissions, the fact reveals that admittedly, he had suffered with 16% of permanent disability, for which the tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.3000/- per percentage. But, on considering the 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025petitioner's age of 45 years and the fact that the accident was happened in the year 2017 and also the fact that the appellant had sustained 16% of permanent disability, this court is inclined to enhance the sum awarded towards percentage of disability from Rs.5000/- to Rs.7000/-.10. Furthermore, on perusal of award, it reveals that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had sustained 16% of permanent disability, as a result of which, he was not able to move outside and nearly about six months, he was not able to attend his avocation. However, by relying the discharge summary, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent would also submit that only 11 days, he is in hospital, but on seeing the grievous injury as well as considering his permanent disability, this Court is inclined to modify the period for loss of income as six months. 11. On further perusal of record, the fact reveals that the petitioner is a Mridangam player, thereby he earned a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. But, without considering the same, the tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.7500/- towards notional monthly income. However, considering his age and the accident was happened in the year 2017 and also considering the cost of living at that time, this court is inclined to enhance the sum awarded towards notional monthly income from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.15,000/-. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 202512. Considering the fact that during the treatment period, the petitioner incurred huge expenses towards transportation, for which the tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/-, which is very meagre one. Hence, this court is inclined to enhance the transport charges from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- . On perusal of discharge summary, the fact reveals that he had sustained 16% of permanent disability, due to which he had sustained severe pain and he is unable to do his work as before. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the sum awarded towards pain and sufferings from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. 13. As he had suffered with permanent disability, he was in need of more nourishment. Hence, this Court is inclined to enhance the sum awarded towards extra nourishment from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The compensation that has been fixed under the other heads are reasonable and does not require the interference of this Court.14.In the light of the above discussion, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified as follows:6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025S.NoCompensation awarded under the headAmount awarded by the tribunal(in Rs.)Amount(in Rs.)Amount confirmed or granted or enhanced1.Permanent disability(Rs.7,000 x 16% ) 48,0001,12,000enhanced2.Medical expenses5,0005,000confirmed3.Transportation5,00010,000enhanced4.Loss of income(Rs.15,000 x 6)15,00090,000enhanced5.Pain and sufferings15,00030,000enhanced6.Extra nourishment10,00015,000enhanced7. Attender charges6,0006,000enhancedTotal1,04,0002,68,000enhanced15.The compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.1,04,000/- is enhanced to Rs.2,68,000/-. The 2nd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced award amount now determined by this court along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. Insofar as the enhanced compensation is concerned, the deficit court fee, if not paid, shall be paid by the appellant. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 202516.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.12-08-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NorppTo1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Nagapattinam. 2. Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2029 of 2025T.V.THAMILSELVI J.rppCMA No. 2029 of 2025 12-08-20259/9