IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 22.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.

Udaya Kumar …Appellant Vs.

1. D.Velusamy

2. M.Mary

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., T.P.Cell, No.6, Reliance House, Haddow Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. ...Respondents Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, against the Judgment dated 12.09.2024 made in MCOP No.3609 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr. G.Balakrishnan For Respondents : Mr. P.Suresh Srinivasan for R3 R1 & R2 – Notice dispensed with

JUDGME NT

This appeal, filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P. No.3609 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows :

On 17.05.2019 at about 12.30 hours, while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-20-BX-1114, proceeding from Moolakar towards Meyyur Road, near Monnavedu Rice Mill opposite, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-22-AS-3421, coming from the opposite direction, was driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle ridden by the deceased. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot and the petitioner also sustained injuries.

3. The claimant filed the above MCOP claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The Claims Tribunal framed the necessary issues and, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred as alleged and that the claimant is entitled to claim compensation. However, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.99,200/-, which is inadequate.

4. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre sum of Rs.99,200/- towards pecuniary loss, as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, without properly appreciating that the appellant had sustained permanent functional disability due to the injuries and had consequently suffered loss of future earning prospects. The appellant sustained grievous injuries, including fracture, soft tissue injuries and multiple sutured lacerations over the right forearm, right knee and right ankle with right medial malleoli chip fracture. Though the Medical Board assessed the disability at 3%, the Tribunal mechanically adopted the same and fixed Rs.5,000/- per percentage, which is inadequate. Further, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.15,000/- despite the evidence adduced that the appellant was working as a Carpenter. Therefore, the fixation of income and the compensation awarded towards disability warrant enhancement. Further, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is insufficient, especially, when the appellant, who is aged 26 years, sustained grievous injuries and underwent treatment at Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, Chennai, as an inpatient for 34 days. He further submitted that the compensation awarded towards transportation and extra nourishment are very low. Hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent /

Insurance Company submitted that, the Tribunal has considered the materials on record and had awarded 'just compensation' which requires no interference by this Court. However, he did not raise any objection in accepting the Payment advice now produced by the claimant.

7. Considering the nature of injuries, age of the