Madras High Court
Valarmathi vs M. Thalamuthu on 24 February, 2025
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
C.M.A.No.1562 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
C.M.A.No.1562 of 2023
Valarmathi ... Appellant
Vs.
1.M. Thalamuthu
2.The New India Ass.Co.Ltd.,
Motor III Party Claims Office,
No.232, N.S.C. Bose Road,
Bombay Mutual Building, 6th Floor,
Chennai – 1. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 15.06.2022 made in
M.C.O.P.No.3355 of 2018 on th file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special Sub Judge II, Court of Small Causes) Chennai.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1562 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr. K. Sivakumar.
For Respondents : Ms. A. Salomi for R2
R1 – served – No appearance.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr. A.D. Maria clete, J)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the award
dated 15.06.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 3355 of 2018,
primarily on the grounds of the inadequacy of the compensation awarded.
2. The appellant sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident that occurred
on 26.05.2018. She suffered a traumatic amputation of her left leg up to the knee,
along with multiple fractures and other severe injuries. The Tribunal, after
considering the evidence, awarded a total compensation of Rs.23,38,300/-.
However, the appellant contends that the award is grossly inadequate and does not
reflect the proper assessment of her loss.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The primary grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal erroneously
fixed her monthly notional income at Rs.11,000/- without considering judicial
precedents and the prevailing economic conditions. Moreover, the Tribunal’s
assessment of functional disability at 70% is arbitrary and contrary to the medical
evidence on record. The Disability Certificate issued by the Regional Medical
Board clearly states that the appellant suffers from an 85% permanent disability.
4. It is well settled in Andal v. Avinav Kannan that a reasonable notional
income should be considered where documentary proof is absent. Given the
appellant’s avocation as a tailor, the correct income should have been assessed at
Rs.13,000/- per month. The Tribunal failed to recognize the impact of this
disability on her ability to earn a livelihood and perform daily activities. The
recent Supreme Court judgment in Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini &
Anr. [2025 SCC Online SC 276] mandates that such disability be taken at its full
value when computing loss of earning capacity. This Court, therefore, rectifies this
error by adopting the correct disability percentage of 85% in its calculations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Furthermore, the Tribunal applied the correct percentage multiplier of 17 as
per the Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation case. However, since the
Tribunal undervalued the income and disability percentage, the final quantum of
compensation was significantly lower than what should have been awarded. Under
other heads, such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and attendant charges,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is found to be reasonable, and no
modification is required. However, the overall compensation is enhanced to ensure
just and fair compensation in line with judicial precedents. Accordingly, the
compensation is now revised as follows:
S.No Description Amount Amount Award
awarded by awarded by this confirmed or
Tribunal Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted or
reduced
1 Disability Rs.2,199,120 Rs.3,155,880 Enhanced
2 Pain and Rs.75,000 Rs.75,000 Confirmed
sufferings
3 Transportation Rs.4,000 Rs.4,000 Confirmed
4 Extra Rs.10,000 Rs.10,000 Confirmed
nourishment
5 Attender charges Rs.20,100 Rs.20,100 Confirmed
6 Loss of amenities Rs.30,000 Rs.30,000 Confirmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No Description Amount Amount Award
awarded by awarded by this confirmed or
Tribunal Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted or
reduced
Total Rs.23,38,220 Rs.32,94,980 Enhanced
rounded off to rounded off to
Rs.23,38,300 Rs.32,95,000
6. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, modifying
the award of the Tribunal to the extent indicated above. The second
respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount now
determined by this Court, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of deposit along with interest and costs, less
the amount already deposited if any within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is
permitted to withdraw the award amount along with proportionate interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The appellant is directed to pay
the necessary Court fee on the enhanced award amount, if any. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(R.S.K., J) (A.D.M.C., J)
24.02.2025
ay
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court No.2,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J
and
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
