[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
V.Karunamoorthy vs A.Vasudevan on 21 January, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 07 / 01 / 2026
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 21 / 01 / 2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A. NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
AND
C.M.P. NO.32205 OF 2025
IN
C.M.A. NO.3852 OF 2025
C.M.A. NO.2052 OF 2025
V.Karunamoorthy ... Appellant /
Petitioner
Versus
1.A.Vasudevan
(1st Respondent was set ex-parte
by the Tribunal)
2.The Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Sillingi Building,
No.134, Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents /
Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to enhance the compensation awarded vide the
Page No.1 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
Award dated April 25, 2025 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2514 of 2020 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and II Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Dinesh Kumar
For Respondent-1 : Left
For Respondent-2 : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam
C.M.A. NO.3852 OF 2025
The Manager
M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
'Sillingi Building',
No.134, Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Appellant /
2nd Respondent
Versus
1.V.Karunamoorthy ... 1st Respondent
Petitioner
2.A.Vasudevan ... 2nd Respondent /
1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Award dated April 25, 2025
passed in M.C.O.P.No.2514 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal and II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam
For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Dinesh Kumar
For Respondent-2 : Left
Page No.2 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
***
COMMON JUDGMENT
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated April 25, 2025 passed by 'the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and II Court of Small Causes, Chennai'
['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.2514 of 2020, the petitioner therein
namely V.Karunamoorthy has preferred C.M.A. No.2052 of 2025 seeking
enhancement of compensation while the second respondent therein,
namely - The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited has
preferred C.M.A. No.3852 of 2025 seeking to set aside the Award.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
denoted as per their array in the Original Petition.
PETITIONER'S CASE
3. On the early hours of May 22, 2020, at about 01:15 hours, the
petitioner was driving a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-02-AL-7299.
He was proceeding from Janappan Chathram Koot Road towards Padi,
Chennai, on GNT Road, Sholavaram, Tiruvallur District.
3.1. At that time, a Container Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
BA-7003, was driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and in
violation of traffic rules. It was coming from the opposite direction. The
driver of the said Container Lorry drove the vehicle in a zigzag manner
and suddenly turned without giving any signal or indication, thereby
colliding with the petitioner’s Lorry.
3.2. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained fractures in both
legs along with multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately
after the accident, the petitioner was admitted at F.O.R. Ortho and Neuro
Hospital, Chennai and thereafter took further treatment in other private
hospitals.
3.3. In connection with the accident, a criminal case was registered on
the file of the Sholavaram Police Station against the driver of the said
Container Lorry in Crime No.1906 of 2020, for offences under Sections
279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3.4. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 27 years
and was employed as a Lorry Driver under M/s.Royal Aqua Lorry Service,
earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. The first respondent is the
owner of the offending Container Lorry and the second respondent is the
insurer of the said vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
Container Lorry and therefore, both the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner
filed the present Claim Petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/-.
FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE:
4. Despite notice to the first respondent, he did not choose to contest
the Original Petition, hence he was called absent and set ex-parte by the
Tribunal.
SECOND RESPONDENT’S CASE:
5. The second respondent filed counter contending that the accident
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner
himself. Apart from the routine formal contentions and denials, it was
contended that the medical bills produced were created for the purpose of
the claim and therefore could not be considered as valid evidence. It was
also stated that the discharge summary does not indicate that the petitioner
is unable to continue his avocation as a Lorry Driver. Stating so, the
second respondent prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
TRIBUNAL
6. At trial, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. One Lakshmi,
Junior Assistant from Regional Transport Office, Ariyalur was examined
as P.W.2. Yashwanth, Manager from Shifa Royal Aqua Products was
examined as P.W.3. Kavin Kumaran, Administrative Officer from F.O.R.
Ortho and Neuro Hospital was examined as P.W.4. Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.22 were
marked. On the side of the respondents, neither any witness was examined
nor any document was marked. Disability Certificate issued by the
Medical Board was marked as Ex-C.1.
7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record,
found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the first respondent's Driver. At the time of accident, the Container Lorry
which caused the accident was insured with the second respondent /
Insurance Company. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the second
respondent / Insurance Company alone is liable to pay the compensation to
the petitioner and awarded a sum of Rs.57,03,000/- (Rupees Fifty Seven
Lakhs Three Thousand Only) as compensation to the petitioner, as
tabulated hereunder:
Sl.No. Head Amount
1 Loss of income (Rs.20,440/- X 12 X 17 X 100%) Rs.41,69,760.00
2 Transport to Hospital Rs.20,000.00
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
3 Extra Nourishment Rs.30,000.00
4 Attender's charges Rs.1,00,000.00
5 Medical Bills Rs.9,32,215.00
6 Pain and Sufferings, Mental agony Rs.1,00,000.00
7 Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000.00
8 Future medical expenses Rs.50,000.00
9 Loss of marriage prospects Rs.2,00,000.00
10 Damage to cloth Rs.1,000.00
Total Rs.57,02,975.00
Rounded off to Rs.57,03,000.00
8. Dissatisfied with the Award, the second respondent / Insurance
Company preferred C.M.A. No.3852 of 2025 seeking to set aside the
same. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the petitioner has
preferred C.M.A. No.2052 of 2025 seeking enhancement of compensation.
ARGUMENTS:
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in C.M.A. No.2052
of 2025 / first respondent in C.M.A. No.3852 of 2025 / petitioner in the
claim petition, submitted that the petitioner was working as a heavy
vehicle driver in a company called Shifa Royal Aqua Products and earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner has examined the manager of the
company as P.W.3 through whom Ex-P.19 was marked. Ex-P.19 is a letter
stating that the petitioner was earning Rs.1,500/- per day, Sundays were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
holidays and accordingly, the petitioner's monthly income was Rs.30,000/-
per month. He drew attention of this Court to Ex-P.1 - First Information
Report (FIR) and submitted that the accident occurred in the course of
employment and the employer cum owner of the vehicle is the one who
preferred the police complaint regarding the accident. In view of the fact
that the petitioner was a driver holding heavy vehicle licence, in any rate,
he would have earned at least Rs.20,000/- per month and he relied on the
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila -vs- Ram Swaroop,
reported in 2023 ACJ 2028, wherein the income for a heavy vehicle (18
wheels) driver was taken as Rs.20,000/- per month including daily
allowances. The Tribunal failed to consider the said aspect and erred in
fixing his income notionally at Rs.14,600/-, which is on the lower side.
Further, due to the accident, one of the petitioner's leg remain twisted and
he cannot even stand much less move without assistance from others and
consequently, he lost his marriage prospects. The Tribunal has awarded
Rs.2,00,000/- for the same which is meagre and insufficient. Accordingly,
he prayed to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellant in C.M.A.
No.3852 of 2025 / second respondent in C.M.A.No.2052 of 2025 /
insurance company submitted that that the first respondent's vehicle came
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
in the opposite lane and turned into Sholavaram town after turning on
indicators. It is the petitioner who drove rashly and negligently and
collided with the first respondent's lorry. In any event, the petitioner must
be mulcted with a deduction for contributory negligence. The Tribunal
failed to consider the said aspect. Further, Ex-P.6 contains Medical Bills of
the petitioner to the tune of Rs.9,32,215/-. But out of the same, Bills for
Rs.7,61,321/- alone was issued by F.O.R. Ortho and Neuro Hospital. Bills
for the remaining amount were issued by random private hospitals and
medical shops and are suspicious; they lack prescription or any supporting
material. They have been inserted with a view to boost the compensation.
Accordingly, he prayed to allow C.M.A. No.3852 of 2025, dismiss C.M.A.
No.2052 of 2025 and set aside the Award.
DISCUSSION:
11. Heard either side. Perused the evidence available on record.
12. As regards negligence, in Ex-P.1 - F.I.R. preferred by the
petitioner's owner, it has been stated that the accident occurred when the
first respondent's vehicle travelling towards Chennai in the same direction
as that of his vehicle, suddenly and negligently took a turn without any
indication. In the claim petition, the petitioner has stated that the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
respondent's vehicle was coming from the opposite direction in a zig-zag
manner and made a Turn without any warning signs to enter Sholavaram
Town and that led to the accident. Admittedly, the informant / owner of the
vehicle driven by the petitioner was present at the accident spot at the time
of accident. Hence, his complaint is based on hear-say information. While
it can be relied on qua factum of accident, in the presence of the petitioner,
it cannot be relied on qua manner of accident. Among these two, the
petitioner is the competent person to depose about the manner of accident.
The petitioner in his claim petition as well as in his evidence as P.W.1, has
consistently maintained a stand that the first respondent's vehicle was
coming in the opposite direction and abruptly made a turn without any
indication leading to the accident. Hence, the petitioner has prima facie
established his case qua manner of accident and negligence. Now the onus
is upon the respondents to rebut the same and prove their case of
negligence on the petitioner. The second respondent ought to have
examined the driver of the first respondent or any other ocular witness to
prove their case, but they have miserably failed to do so. No Rough Sketch
was filed and the Investigating Officer in the Criminal Case was also not
examined. The second respondent has not taken any step to prove its case
of negligence / contributory negligence on the petitioner. Hence, this Court
concludes that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
of the first respondent's driver.
13. Coming to the income of the petitioner, there is no standard and
consistent proof. The petitioner is said to have been working as a Heavy
Vehicle Driver at Shifa Royal Aqua Products, a proprietary concern.
Yashwanth, its Manager was examined as P.W.3 and he marked the Ex-
P.19 - Letter issued by the Owner of the said proprietary concern. P.W.3
has deposed that the petitioner earned Rs.1,500/- per day and was entitled
to one day week-off. In Ex-P.19, it is stated that the petitioner earned
Rs.1,500/- per day and Sundays were holidays. In any case, the monthly
income of the petitioner should be around Rs.39,000/- [(Rs.1,500/- X 30) -
(Rs.1,500 X 4)]. But in the very same letter, it has also been stated that the
petitioner earned Rs.30,000/-. Hence, the letter is not consistent with itself.
The petitioner who in his claim petition has stated that he was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month, in his evidence as P.W.1 has inconsistently stated
that he was receiving Rs.45,000/- per month. In grounds of appeal filed
before this Court, it is stated that the petitioner earned Rs.20,000/- per
month. Hence, this Court needs direct or corroborative evidence to decide
the income of the petitioner. The petitioner could have filed his bank
statement, wage register from employer, or atleast examined his co-drivers
if any. But he has not done so. Hence, the petitioner has not proved his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
income. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in considering his
income notionally. But it failed to consider the fact that the driving, that
too driving heavy vehicles, is a skilled job and that the petitioner has his
heavy vehicle licence ever since 2014 (Ex-P.16 - Licence). Considering the
said aspects as well as the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2020,
this Court is of the view that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at
Rs.14,600/- per month is on the lower side and that the petitioner would
have earned not less than Rs.18,000/- per month. Accordingly, this Court
fixes the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.18,000/-.
14. As regards the Sushila's Case relied on by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the Driver therein
being a driver of a heavy vehicle with 18 wheels, would have earned
Rs.20,000/- as there is demand for drivers for such heavy duty vehicles.
The accident therein took place in 2012. The Driver therein had produced
two documents (Ex-P.3 and Ex-P.4) to contend that he was earning
Rs.23,500/-. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took
Rs.20,000/- as notional income. Coming to the instant case, the petitioner
herein is a Driver for a water lorry and as stated supra, he has not proved
his alleged income of Rs.45,000/-. Hence, Sushila's Case would not come
to the aid of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
15. As regards the contention qua Ex-P.6 - Medical Bills, the case
of the insurance company is that it is valid only for the amount of
Rs.7,61,321/- spent at F.O.R. Ortho and Neuro Hospital and that the Bills
for the remaining amount viz., Rs.1,70,679/- are false. In this case, the
Administrator of the said Hospital was examined as P.W.4. The insurance
company did not pose him with any question as to the relevancy or
necessity of the treatment and medicines taken by the petitioner outside
their hospital, as shown by the Bills for the remaining amount of
Rs.1,70,679/-. Those Bills bear the name of the petitioner. As per the
discharge summaries available in Ex-P.3 to Ex-P.5, the petitioner had
underwent three surgeries and underwent treatment as in-patient in three
spells, first from May 23, 2020 to June 14, 2020, then from July 3, 2020 to
July 10, 2020, and then from November 2, 2020 to November 7, 2020.
Given the nature and period of treatment, the Bill amount appears to be a
reasonable one. Under the given circumstances, the presumption is that the
Bills were duly incurred by the petitioner due to the accident when there is
no reason to infer otherwise. The insurance company has not let in any
evidence to dispute the genuineness of those Bills. This Court finds no
reason to disbelieve them and the contention of the learned Counsel of the
insurance company in this regard deserves to be rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
16. As regards disability, this Court deems fit to extract hereunder
the relevant portions of Ex-P.3 to Ex-P.5 for better understanding of the
nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner:
Ex-P.3:
"DIAGNOSIS: 1. Major Crush Injury Grade -3B
Compound Comminuted Segmental BothBone
Fracture (Lt) Leg / 2. Post Traumatic Gangrene (Lt)
Foot Dorsum / 3. Post Truamatic Raw (Lt) Dorsum of
foot with Bone Exposed Tendon Exposed.
. . . . . . .
PROCEDURE: 1. Wound Wash + Debridement +
LRS Fixation (Lt) done.
Under SA patient on supine position wound washed
throughly with NS, Betadine, Scrub, Hydrogen
Peroxide paint draped. satisfactly reduction achived
and Fracture stabilized using LRS Fixator using 3
Proximal pins and 3 distal pins under C-ARM control,
Dislocated 2nd MT, Tarsal joint was stabilised using a
k-wire, wound stiching sutures applied using 1 ethilon,
through lavoger given Bactrigoss. Dressing applied.
PROCEDURE: 2. Post Traumatic Gangrene Lt Foot
Dorsum done.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
Under SA Patient on Supine Position, spiral area with
aseptic precaution wound through debridement of the
wound done, through wound wash given. Dressing
Applied.
PROCEDURE: 4. (sic 3.) Flap Cover + SSG Lt
Dorsum done.
Under SA Patient on Supine Position under aspect
with aseptic precaution debridement done. Dead
Tendon Bone Exised, further debridement done, cross
Leg flap from other Leg covered to the defect, SSG
harvested from thigh medial aspect for the defect
Dressing Applied and POP given."
Ex-P.4:
"DIAGNOSIS: Grade 3B Compound Fracture Lt Leg
on External Fix with Cross Leg Flap.
PROCEDURE: Crossing Flap done - Flap Division
Lt Leg Done.
Under SA Patient on Supine Position under aseptic
precaution division done, Patient had BP fall - flap
insert done site sutured using 2-0 ethilon. Dressing
Applied."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
Ex-P.5:
"Diagnosis: 6 months old Operated Grade - 3 B
Compound Fracture Both Bone with Infected Flap
Cover Dorsum of Lt Foot.
Procedure: Wound Wash + Debridement Done Lt
Foot."
17. Further, the petitioner appeared before this Court on January 7,
2026. This Court was able to witness the current physical condition of the
petitioner. His left leg appears to be twisted which makes him unable to
move or even stand on his own without holding to someone or some
object. The petitioner would definitely not be able to continue his driver
profession. While so, though the Medical Board assessed the disability of
the petitioner as 81% permanent disability, this Court is of the view that
the petitioner suffers from 100% functional disability. Hence, the Tribunal
was right in fixing 100% functional disability and employing multiplier
method.
18. With Rs.18,000/- as monthly income, 40% future prospects (as
per National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680) and the appropriate multiplier of 17 (as per Sarla
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121),
the compensation under the head of loss of income would be
Rs.51,40,800/-.
19. The Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation towards
loss of amenities. As functional disability of the petitioner is considered at
100% and multiplier method is employed, there is no need to award
compensation under the head of the loss of amenities and hence, the same
is liable to be removed. In this regard reference may be made to Raj
Kumar -vs- Ajay Kumar, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"15.It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by
treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even
anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation
separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of
expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token
or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of
loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise
there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be
that as it may."
20. This Court finds the compensation awarded under other heads
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
just, fair and reasonable, including that of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded under the
head of loss of marriage prospects.
21. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to modified compensation of
Rs.65,74,015/- [Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand and
Fifteen only]. The break-up figure is as follows:
S.No. Head Amount Awarded by Amount awarded by
the Tribunal this Court
1 Loss of income Rs.41,69,760.00 51,40,800.00
(Rs.20,440/- X 12 X 17 X 100% awarded by Tribunal)
(Rs.18,000/- X 40% (FP) = Rs.25,200/-
Rs.25,200/- X 12X 17 X 100% awarded by this Court)
2 Transport to Hospital Rs.20,000.00 Rs.20,000.00
3 Extra Nourishment Rs.30,000.00 Rs.30,000.00
4 Attender's charges Rs.1,00,000.00 Rs.1,00,000.00
5 Medical Bills Rs.9,32,215.00 Rs.9,32,215.00
6 Pain and Sufferings, Mental agony Rs.1,00,000.00 Rs.1,00,000.00
7 Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000.00 ---
8 Future medical expenses Rs.50,000.00 Rs.50,000.00
9 Loss of marriage prospects Rs.2,00,000.00 Rs.2,00,000.00
10 Damage to cloth Rs.1,000.00 Rs.1,000.00
Total Rs.57,02,975.00 Rs.65,74,015.00
(Rounded off to
Rs.57,03,000/-)
22. The insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount,
less if any already deposited, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2514 of 2020 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and II Court of Small
Causes, Chennai, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
receipt of a copy of this Common Judgment. In all other aspects, the
Award of the Tribunal shall hold good.
CONCLUSION:
23. Resultantly, C.M.A.No.2052 of 2025 filed by the petitioner is
allowed in part and an enhanced compensation is awarded as detailed
above. C.M.A.No.3852 of 2025 filed by the insurance company is
dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties
shall bear their own costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
[N.S.K., J.] [R.S.V., J.]
21 / 01 / 2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
TK
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
and II Court of Small Causes
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
CMA NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small
Causes,
PRE-DELIVERY COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
021C.M.A. NOS.423 AND 828 OF 202C.M.A. NOS.1902 AND 2302
C.M.A. NOS.2052 AND 3852 OF 2025
AND
C.M.A. NOS.3927 AND 3204 OF 2019 AND 149 OF 2022
C.M.A. NOS.423 AND 828 O
21 / 01 / 2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
