Madras High Court
R. Russell Joseph Jones vs The Managing Director on 14 November, 2025
CMA No. 3049 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI
CMA No. 3049 of 2025
R. Russell Joseph Jones
... Appellant
vs
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Ltd.,
Pallavan House Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002. ... Respondent
PRAYER:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act against the order made in MCOP.No.3392 of 2020 dated 18.07.2025
on the file of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Chennai/ I Special
Court, Small causes Court, Chennai
For Appellant : Mr. K. Balaji
For Respondent : Mr. Murali Vinoth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
CMA No. 3049 of 2025
JUDGMENT
By consent of both parties, the appeal is heard and disposed of at the
stage of admission itself.
2. The claimant herein has preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
against the Award dated 18.07.2025 passed in MCOP.No.3392 of 2020 on
the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Court No.1, Small Causes
Court, Chennai for enhancement of compensation.
3. The parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and
ranking before the Claims Tribunal.
4. The facts leading to filing of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
as follows:
(i) On 22.10.2020 at 09.45 a.m., while the petitioner was proceeding in
College Road, Nungambakkam in his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-01-
BB-5747, a bus belonging to Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., bearing
Regn.No.TN-01-AN-0840, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,
which was coming behind the two wheeler, hit against the two wheeler. Due to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
which, the petitioner sustained fracture on his legs and degloving injuries and
multiple injuries all over the body.
(ii) The respondent is the owner of the bus driven by its driver.
(iii) Since the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of Transport Corporation, respondent-owner of the
offending vehicle is vicariously and statutorily liable to pay compensation to
the claimant.
(iv) Hence, the claimant made a claim petition before the Motor Accident
claims Tribunal / I Special Court, Small Causes Court, Chennai in
M.C.O.P.No.3392 of 2020 claiming compensation of Rs.17,00,,000/- against
the respondent stating that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged
44 years and was working as a godown keeper and was earning Rs.12,460/-
per month. Due to the accident, the claimant was unable to do any normal
work as before.
(v) Refuting the averments made in the claim petition, counter was filed
by the Transport Corporation denying that the accident occurred due to the
rash driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation, but it occured due to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
the careless driving of the two wheeler driven by the appellant when he
attekmpts to overtake the bus. It also denied the income of the claimant,
nature of injuries, period of treatment, disability sustained by the deceased,
possession of valid driving licence by the claimant. It would further aver that
the claimant, did not wear helmet and invited the accident.
(vi) At trial, on the side of the claimant, one witness was examined and
fourteen documents were marked. On the respondent's side, one witness was
examined and one document was marked. Apart from that Ex.X.1 and Ex.C.1
were also marked.
(vii) The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing the arguments advanced by either side counsels, awarded
compensation of Rs.2,52,000/- with proportionate costs payable by the
respondent to the claimant along with 7.5% interest p.a., from the date of
petition.
(viii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants under
various heads is as follows;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal (Rs.)
For medical treatment and Rs. 1,000/-
medical expenses
For Transportation expenses Rs. 10,000/-
For extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
For attendant charges Rs. 10,000
For the disability suffered Rs. 1,70,000/-
For Partial loss of income Rs. 36,000/-
For pain and sufferings Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 2,52,000/-
5. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
claimant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant
was working as a godown keeper in a private company and was earning a
sum of Rs.12,460/- per month. Due to the accident, he had sustained fracture
on his left leg on both bones and degloving injury over the right leg. The
Medical Board assessed the disability of the appellant at 34 %, however the
Tribunal by granting meagre amount of Rs.5000/- per percentage of disability,
awarded Rs.1,70,000/- towards Permanent loss of income. Due to disability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
suffered and the same is inadequate. He would further submit that the
Tribunal fixed the notional income of the appellant at Rs.12,000/- which is
also less. He further submitted that the compensation awarded to the
appellant under other heads were also on the lower side. Thus, he sought for
enhancement of compensation as regards the other heads also.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent would strenuously argue that the
appellant has claimed to be working as a godown keeper and was earning
a sum of Rs.12,460/- per month as stated in the claim petition. In such
circumstances, fixing of notional income at Rs.12,000/- per month by the
tribunal cannot be found fault with. He further submitted that the amounts
awarded under various heads also appears to be reasonable and acceptable,
therefore, the same needs no interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. The manner in which the accident occurred is not in dispute.
10. It is the evidence of PW1 that on account of the accident, he
suffered fracture of his both bones of his left leg and he was admitted at Govt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
Stanley Medical College and Hospital on 22.10.2020 and got discharged on
27.11.2020. Perusal of Ex.P.5 -Discharge summary would reveal that in
hospital, he was diagnosed with fracture of left both bone leg with PTRA –
Right Leg and in the course of treatment, the following procedures were done
to him (i) Wound Debridement right leg (ii) CRIF with IMIL Nailing (9 * 32 cm)
wound debridement right leg. The medical treatment records are marked
Ex.P.2, P.5 , P11 and P12. The Special Medical Board of Rajiv Gandhi
Government General Hospital, Chennai has assessed the disability of the
appellant at 34%. PW1 had deposed that he was working as godown keeper
at M/s Foot Step , Pantheon Road, Egmore and no document was marked to
substantiate the said details. Considering the above, the
Tribunal fixed the income of the appellant at Rs.12,000/- and the same
appears to be acceptable and reasonable.
11. PW1 would also depose that because of the injuries and the
fracture sustained by him over his two legs, he is facing difficulty to sit, stand,
walk, run and climbing up stairs etc. He would also state that he is not in a
position to work as a godown keeper as he did before. It is a common
knowledge that as a godown keeper, he has to lift packages.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
12. In consideration of the fracture and injuries suffered by the
claimant, for transportation charges and for extra nourishment, a sum of
Rs.30,000/- is awarded under each head, instead of Rs.10,000/-. For pain
and sufferings, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is granted in addition to the amount
already granted by the Tribunal.
13. The claimant had suffered both bone fracture by left leg and
degloving injury over right leg below the knee. It is the evidence of PW1 that
due to the fracture and injuries suffered for both legs, he is not in a position to
work as he did before. Under what circumstances, the multiplier method may
be invoked in injury cases is dealt with by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs
Ajay Kumar reported in [(2011) 1 SCC 343]. The principles which are
summarized by the Apex Court in the said case is given hereunder:
“(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do
not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference
to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the
percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the
percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases,
where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as
percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent
of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is
something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with
reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age,
education and other factors."
14. The claimant was 44 years old. As per the medical records, his age
is fixed as 43 years (ExP.2, P5, P11). He had sustained both bone fracture
over left leg and degloving injury over the right leg. His contention is to the
effect that due to the injuries sustained, it is not possible for him to work as he
did before. Taking into account the abovesaid details, his functional disability
is fixed as 32%. In order to meet the ends of justice and in consideration of
the abovesaid injuries and the fracture suffered by the claimant, multiplier
method is adopted in computing the loss of income. Therefore, for computing
loss of income, the following formula emerges:
Rs.12000 x 12 x 14m x 32% = Rs. 6,45,120/-
Thus, this Court awards Rs.6,45,120/- towards loss of income due to disability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
15. As regards other heads, such as medical expenses and attendant
charges, the amounts awarded by the tribunal appears to be reasonable and
acceptable and hence, the same does not warrant any interference by this
Court. Regarding pain and sufferings, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is granted in
addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. Apart from that, this court
awards Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities. The amounts awarded as
mentioned supra after rework is tabulated hereunder:
Heads Compensati Compensatio
on awarded n awarded
by the by this Court
Tribunal
(Rs.)
1. Loss of income due Rs.1,70,000Rs.6,45,120 enhanced
to disability -
2.for loss of income Rs. 36,000 Rs. 36,000/- confirmed
during treatment period
3. for medical expenses Rs.1000/- Rs. 1000/- confirmed
4.for transportation Rs.10,000/- Rs. 30,000/- enhanced
expenses
5. for extra nourishment Rs.10,000/ Rs. 30,000 enhanced
6. for attendant charges Rs.10,000/ Rs. 10,000/- confirmed
7.for pain and sufferings Rs.15,000/ Rs. 40,000/- enhanced
8. for loss of amenities --- Rs. 25,000/- granted)
Total Rs.2,52,000 Rs. 8,17,120 enhanced
Rounded off to Rs.8,17,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
16. Thus, this court awards Rs.8,17,000/- towards compensation for
the claimant along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realisation.
17. In the result,
• The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
• The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs. 2,52,000/- to Rs.8,17,000/-.
• The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation of Rs.8,17,000/-. awarded by this Court to the
credit of MCOP.No.3392 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accident
claims Tribunal, Chennai (I Special court, Small Causes Court,
Chennai) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, (excluding
the period of default, if any) less the amount, if any deposited,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
• On such deposit, the appellant/ claimant is at liberty to
withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs,
after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing
application before the Tribunal.
• The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the court fee for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal
shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of the
certified copy showing proof of payment of court fee by the
claimants/appellants.
msr 14.11.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chennai (I Special Court, Small
Causes Court, Chennai)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
R.KALAIMATHI J.
msr
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 02:56:40 pm )
