IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

P.Krishnan ... Appellant

vs.

1.B.Prakasam

2.The Manager,

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Micro Office,

No.139, 1^st Floor, C.N.Annadurai Road,

Khaderpet, Vaniyambadi,

Vellore-635 751. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment dated 01.03.2024 made in M.C.O.P.No.172 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /

Principal Sub-Judge, Krishnagiri.

For Appellant : Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj

For Respondents : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam[R2]

R1 – Notice Dispensed With.

JUDGMENT

The Claimant herein has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

against the Award dated 01.03.2024 made in M.C.O.P.No.172 of 2022 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, for enhancement of compensation.

2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal.

3.The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained on account of the accident that occurred on 24.07.2021.

4. The Tribunal upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced on either side granted compensation of Rs.6,81,781/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition.

5. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are given hereunder:

Sl. Description Amount No. awarded by Tribunal

1 For Partial Rs.2,50,000/-

Permanent

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would argue that the claimant who was 37 years of age suffered right leg both bone fracture [Ramon Gustilo and Anderson type – IIIB] underwent surgery and the District Medical Board assessed his disability as 50%. He underwent two surgeries over the right leg. After the accident, he is not in a position to work as he did before. But the Tribunal adopted percentage method is not correct. It is further put-forth that the claimant is working as vegetable commission agent and earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month and the Tribunal has fixed the income of the claimant as Rs.12,000/- is less. Having suffered 50% disability, the amount granted by the Tribunal towards attender charges is inadequate. He would further argue that on account of disability suffered, the claimant is not in a position to work as vegetable commission agent as he did before and sought for invocation of multiplier for loss of future income.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company would strenuously argue that the Award for attender charges and loss of amenities and for extra nourishment are on the higher side. The claimant has not chosen to file any treatment record to substantiate that he was under continuous treatment. As a vegetable commission agent there may not be any loss of income for the claimant and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8. It is the evidence of PW1 that on account of the accident, he suffered right leg both bone fracture [Ramon Gustilo and Anderson Type- IIIB]. On the date of accident, he was treated at Government Hospital, Chetpet and wound certificate is Ex.P9. On the next day he was admitted at C.M.C.Hospital, Vellore and got discharged on 05.08.2021. During hospitalisation, he underwent surgery (wound debridement) and right tibia external fixation was done on 25.07.2021. Thereafter, again he was admitted at the same hospital on 16.08.2021 as an inpatient and got discharged on 23.08.2021 wherein on 18.08.2021, IM nailing was done over right leg - (Ex.P1 discharge summary). He was referred before the District Medical Board and District Medical Board has fixed his disability as

50% as per Ex.C1 disability certificate. It is relevant to note about the nature of the fracture suffered by the claimant.

9. According to the size of the wound, soft tissue damage degree of contamination, fracture of bot