[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M.Santhosh vs M.Pitchaimani on 23 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
C.M.A(MD)No.382 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A(MD)No.382 of 2026
M.Santhosh ... Appellant
Vs.
1.M.Pitchaimani
2.The Branch Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,
Hakkim Ajmalkhan Road,
Chinna Chokkikulam,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 26.02.2025 passed in
MCOP.No.1255 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for enhancement
of compensation.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:23 pm )
C.M.A(MD)No.382 of 2026
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ashok Kumar
For R-1 : Mr.V.S.Kishore Kumar
For R-2 : Mr.N.Shyllappa Kalyan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.)
This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / IV Additional Sub
Court, Madurai made in M.C.O.P.No.1255 of 2022 dated 26.02.2025
seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The case of the claimant was that on 10.03.2022, the
claimant was riding his two-wheeler by wearing a helmet and at about
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:23 pm )
12.10 noon, when the vehicle was going at Solavandhan to Dindigul road
and when the vehicle was crossing the place of occurrence, the vehicle
owned by the first respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner
and it hit the two-wheeler driven by the appellant, as a result of which,
the appellant sustained serious injuries, resulting in the amputation of the
left leg below the knee. It is under these circumstances, the claim
petition came to be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, rendered
a finding that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and
negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle. After having
rendered the said finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the compensation
by applying the multiplier method, considering the fact that the appellant
had suffered functional disability. Accordingly, a total compensation of
Rs.26,59,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand only)
was granted under the following heads.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:23 pm )
1. gFjp epue;ju Cdj;jpw;fhf : &. 22;>68>000/-
2. typ kw;Wk; Ntjidf;F : &. 1>00>000/-
3. kUj;Jt rpfpr;irapd; NghJ
cldpUe;jth; Cjpaj;jpw;;fhf : &. 6>000/-
4. $Ljy; Cl;lrj;JzTf;fhf : &. 25>000/-
5. Nghf;Ftuj;J nryTf;fhf : &. 10>000/-
6. mnrsfupaj;jpw;fhf : &. 1>00>000/-
7. kUj;Jt nryT njhif : &. 1>50>000/-
nkhj;jk; : &. 26>59>000/-
5. The present appeal has been filed seeking for enhancement
of compensation mainly on the ground that the Tribunal did not add
future prospectus to which the claimant is entitled.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in order to
substantiate his submissions, relied upon the following judgments:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:23 pm )
1. 2023 (1) TN MAC 20 (SC) in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @
Shabir Hussain Vs. the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation
2. 2025 INSC 180 in the case of Prakash Chand Sharma Vs.
Rambabu Saini and another
3. 2025 (1) TN MAC 575 (DB) in the case of Manager, United
India Insurance Company Limited Vs. V.Naveendharan and another
7. In the considered view of this Court, the appellant was a 19-
year-old boy, who had suffered amputation of his left limb and had
suffered grievous injuries and the disability was assessed at 70%. The
Tribunal rightly had applied the multiplier method, considering the fact
that there was permanent disability and the appellant faced functional
disability. However, while undertaking the said exercise, the Tribunal
failed to take into consideration the future prospectus to which the
appellant is entitled. Hence, we are inclined to add the future prospectus
at 40%. Apart from that, we find that the appellant had incurred
expenses towards prosthetic limb and the cost of the same has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:23 pm )
substantiated through Ex.P.4 (estimation). That apart, we also find that
the Tribunal has fixed a lower compensation under the heads of pain and
suffering, attender charges and also under the head of loss of
conveyance.
8. In view of the above, we are inclined to modify the compensation
amount as under.
S.N Description Amounts
o.
1. For Pain and Suffering Rs.2,50,000/-
2. For Loss of conveyance including the loss of Rs.3,50,000/-
marriage prospectus
3. For Future Prospectus enhanced as 40% Rs.31,75,200/-
(15,000+(40%) 6000=21,000*12*18 out of
70%
4. Cost towards purchase of prosthetic leg Rs.3,10,000/-
5. For attendant and maintenance enhanced as Rs.9,80,000/-
(from the year of 2025 up to age 70 years
6. For extra nourishment Rs.25,000/-
7. For Transportation Rs.10,000/-
8. For Medical Expenses Rs.1,50,000/-
Total Rs.52,50,200/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:23 pm )
9. In the light of the above discussion, the award dated
26.02.2025 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1255 of 2022 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal / IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is
modified to the above extent. It is made clear that the Tribunal has
already ordered for pay and recovery.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent /
Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company has complied
with the award and deposited the entire compensation award with interest
during March 2025 itself. When this Court condoned the delay in filing
the appeal by order dated 10.03.2026, it was made clear that the appellant
/ claimant will not be entitled for interest for the period of delay in filing
the appeal. Therefore, insofar as the enhancement amount is concerned,
the same shall be deposited by the second respondent / Insurance
Company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order along with interest excluding the period of delay in filing
the appeal. It goes without saying that for the enhancement amount that
is paid by the Insurance Company, the same can be recovered from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:23 pm )
owner of the offending vehicle. Till date, the owner of the vehicle has
not filed any appeal and therefore, we are inclined to dispose of the
present appeal. If and when any appeal is filed by the owner of the
vehicle, if they are aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, this
order will not act against the interest of the first respondent owner and it
will be left open to the owner of the vehicle to contest the appeal on its
own merits and in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands
allowed. No costs.
[N.A.V., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]
23.03.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
TSG
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / IV Additional Subordinate
Judge, Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper (Vernacular Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:23 pm )
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
TSG
23.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:23 pm )
