IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:14.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR C.M.A.No.2563 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21598 of 2025 M/s.Liberty General Insurance Ltd., II Floor, Srivari Shopping Mall, No.2/9, New Bus Stand, Near A.R.R.S.Multiplex, Meyyanur, Salem-636 004. .. Appellant Vs.

1.Evinraj

2.Murugan .. Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.219 of 2021 dated 25.04.2025 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dharmapuri.

For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghavan for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates For R1 : Mr.V.Kadhirvelu For R2 : Exparte

JUDGMENT

The Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri in M.C.O.P.No.219 of 2021, is before this Court challenging the quantum of compensation.

2. The respondent herein, who is the claimant, aged about 30 years, was employed as an officer in City Union Bank, earning a monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-. On 17.09.2020, while he was riding his Honda Activa two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN 29 BU 8454 from his village to Omalur Town, the rider of a Royal Enfield Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 29 BR 6234 dashed against the claimant's two wheeler, causing grievous fractures and injuries. The claimant filed the claim petition seeking a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the disability suffered due to accident.

3. The Tribunal, based on the medical report assessing 70%

functional disability, applied the multiplier and considering the other expenses on various heads has awarded a sum of Rs.64,35,968/- vide order dated 25.04.2025.

4. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is predicated on the ground that the collision between the claimant's two wheeler and the Royal Enfield Bullet occurred due to the contributory negligence of the claimant. According to the insurer, if the claimant had been careful, he could have avoided head-on collision. The Tribunal, however, failed to consider the contribution of the victim/claimant in the said accident.

5. Further, it is also contended by the Insurance Company that the Medical Board has not provided any valid reason for assessing the functional disability at 70%. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant has not resulted in any impairment affecting his employment or the salary. While so, applying the multiplier with 70% functional disability is exorbitant and contrary to the principles laid down in Rajkumar V. Ajaykumar case

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company referring to the fact that the claimant, after treatment had resumed his employment and continued to earn the same salary as he was earning prior to the accident. This would clearly show that the injuries sustained by the claimant and the functional disability asserted by him had not caused any impact on his income.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that the claimant, being an officer in the City Union Bank, had prospects of earning more by canvassing business for the bank and getting incentives for such work. Due to the accident, his prospects of earning incentives have been totally lost. The functional disability of 70% assessed by the Medical Board remains unassailable. While so, it is incorrect to say that the Tribunal mechanically applied multiplier with

70% functional disability.

8. This Court, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the impugned order of the Tribunal, finds that the claimant had undergone four surgeries on different dates in order to resume his normal life. With the replacement of right hip, fixation of fractured left tibia and open reduction with plating of the left leg. No doubt, he had resumed his employment and is drawing his salary as he was drawing prior to the accident. However, the nature of