Madras High Court

G.Sivakumar vs P.Nandakumar on 9 April, 2025

                                                                                         CMA.No.759 of 2025


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       Dated :09.04.2025

                                                             CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                                    CMA No.759 of 2025
                       G.Sivakumar                                                       ... Appellant

                                                                  Vs.
                       1.P.Nandakumar
                       (Set exparte before the Trial Court)

                       2United India Insurance Co. Ltd
                       Motor Third Party Claims Office,
                       No.134, Silling Building,
                       Chennai - 006.                               ... Respondent
                       Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                       Vehicle Act, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 28.09.2022 passed
                       in MCOP No.4258/2017 by the Learned IV Motor Accident Claims
                       Tribunal at Chennai, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai and enhance the
                       award from the amount of Rs.2,23,500/- to Rs. 7,23,500 (Rupees seven
                       lakhs and twenty three thousands and five hundred only) as restricted
                       prayed before this Honble Court and direct the 2nd respondent to pay the
                       award amount along with 1st respondent jointly.
                                      For Appellant         : M/s.T.G.Ravichandran

                                      For Respondents : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam for R2
                                                       R1-Notice Dispensed with


                       Page 1 of 10




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 09:12:51 pm )
                                                                                           CMA.No.759 of 2025




                                                            JUDGMENT

Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the injured claimant has come before

this Court by way of this appeal.

2. According to the claimant, on 02.02.2017, he was driving his

two-wheeler in the left-hand side of the Madhavaram High Road. When

he came near Udhayasuriyan Nagar, an auto belonged to the first

respondent, insured with the second respondent came in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle. Due to the accident, the

claimant suffered grievous injuries and he was hospitalized. Hence, the

claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-

3. The first respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, remained

ex-parte before the Tribunal and the claim was resisted only by the insurer

of the vehicle on the ground that the accident had occurred due to the

negligence on the part of the claimant. The 2nd respondent contested the

claim petition by denying the manner of accident as averred in the claim

petition. The second respondent also stated that there was a delay in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 09:12:51 pm )

lodging FIR. Therefore, the claim petition shall be dismissed.

4. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record, came to

the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the

part of the driver of the auto belonged to the first respondent and insured

with the second respondent. The amount payable to the claimant was

quantified at Rs.2,23,500/-. Not satisfied with the quantum, the claimant

has come before this court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant as well as the second

respondent have not advanced any arguments on the questions of

negligence as well as liability. Hence, the facts necessary to decide those

questions are not discussed in this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that as per the

Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, the claimant suffered

20% disability and the Tribunal committed an error in not applying

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 09:12:51 pm )

multiplier method. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount

awarded by the Tribunal under various heads like loss of income, pain

and suffering, loss of amenities, etc., are on lower side.

7. The learned counsel for the Second Respondent submitted that

absolutely there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the

claimant suffered functional disability. Therefore, the Tribunal was

justified in granting compensation by following percentage method.

8.It is seen from the discharge summary marked as Exhibit P2, the

claimant suffered both bone fracture on right leg and calcaneum

Navicular fracture. The competent Medical Board, which assessed the

claimant, issued Exhibit C1, Disability Certificate, fixing permanent

disability suffered by the claimant at 20%. However, there is no evidence

available on record to suggest that the claimant suffered any functional

disability. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation on

percentage basis.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 09:12:51 pm )

9. The accident had taken place in the year 2017. However, the

Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/- per percentage of the disability. Having

regard to the date of accident, the amount per percentage of the disability

is increased to Rs.7,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.

1,40,000/-under the head disability( Rs.7,000 x 20%).

10. It is the case of the claimant that he was a Carpenter and due to

the accident he was immobilized and prevented from attending his work.

Having regard to the fact that the claimant suffered injury on both the

bones of his right leg, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to

grant loss of income for six months period. Having regard to the date of

accident, the notional income of the claimant is fixed at Rs.15,000/- and

hence, the claimant is entitled to Rs.90,000/- under the head loss of

income (15,000 x 6). Since this court has not adopted multiplier method

while awarding compensation for the 20% disability suffered by the

claimant, it is inclined to fix compensation under the heads pain and

suffering and loss of amenities liberally.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 09:12:51 pm )

11. The Discharge summary issued by the hospital marked as

Exhibit. P2 would indicate that the claimant suffered both bone fracture in

his right leg and calcaneum Navicular fracture. He also underwent

surgery for internal fixation. In these circumstances, this court feels that it

may not be possible for the claimant to enjoy his life as he enjoyed it

earlier. Therefore, the amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal

under the head loss of amenities is increased to Rs.75,000/-. Likewise, the

amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and

suffering is increased to Rs.50,000/-. Having regard to the nature of the

injury and the period of hospitalization, the amount awarded under the

heads transportation expenses is increased to Rs.20,000/- and attender

charges is increased to Rs.10,000/-. Having regard to the fact that

compensation is awarded under the head pain and suffering, the Tribunal

ought not have awarded any amount under the head mental agony and the

same is set aside. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the heads

nutritional expenses, damage to clothes are confirmed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 09:12:51 pm )

12. In view of the discussions made earlier, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:-

Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded awarded confirmed or
by by this enhanced or
Tribunal Court (Rs) granted
(Rs)
1. Disability 1,00,000/- 1,40,000/- Enhanced
2. Pain and Suffering 25,000/- 50,000/- Enhanced
3. Loss of amenities 40,000/- 75,000/- Enhanced
4. Nutritional expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
5. Transport expenses 5,000/- 20,000/- Enhanced

6. Mental Agony 15,000/- Nil Set aside
7. Attender charges 7,500/- 10,000/- Enhanced
8. Loss of income 20,000/- 90,000/- Enhanced
9 Damage to clothes 1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed
Total 2,23,500/- 3,96,000/- Enhanced by
Rs.1,72,500/-

13. With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at

Rs.2,23,500/- is enhanced to Rs.3,96,000/-.The appellant is entitled to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 09:12:51 pm )

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition till the date of realization (excluding the delay period of 224 days

as per order in CMP.No.23898 of 2023). The second respondent

/Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount

before the Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount already

deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of this Judgment. The appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw

the same along with interests and costs, less the amount if any, already