IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.02.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.M.A.No.2281 of 2024 Mr.Manikumar … Appellant Vs

1.Jaleel

2.The Manager The National Insurance Company Limited No.66, 1^st Floor, TP HUB Murugesa Naicker Complex Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006 .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.249 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Jaishankar for Mr.R.Nandakumar For Respondents : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam for R2

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.)

The claimant is the appellant. He seeks enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes) at Chennai vide order dated 29.11.2023 in M.C.O.P.No.249 of 2020. As the first and second respondents therein have not challenged the award, we need not go into the issue of negligence and other aspects. This appeal is confined only to the issue of enhancement.

2. The appellant was working as an Executive at the time of accident. He was aged about 27 years at the time of accident. On account of the accident, he has suffered 100% disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.35,93,800/-, as against the claim of Rs.3 Crores sought for by the claimant.

3. We heard Mr.Jaishankar for the appellant and Mr.Michael Visuvasam for the second respondent. The first respondent, who is the owner of the lorry, remained ex parte before the Tribunal as well as, before this Court.

4. Mr.Jaishankar urges that the MACT had taken a very conservative view while granting the compensation. He states it failed to consider the future employment aspects and earnings of the claimant. On account of the accident, the appellant has been forced to continue his treatment at the Christian Medical College, Vellore, including undergoing plastic surgery. He states that as on today, he is 100% paraplegic and he is able to move around only using the wheelchair.

5. Per contra, Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam points out that the issue of future prospects cannot be considered, as the appellant continues to be in employment as a Senior Engineer with his employer, and his salary had been increased over the period of time. He states that the enhancement should not be granted under the heads of loss of earning capacity and future prospects.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the records.

7. We are entirely in agreement with Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam on the aspect of loss of earning capacity and future prospects. Mr.Jaishankar was called upon to produce the latest salary certificate of the appellant. He produced the same for our perusal. It shows that the appellant continues to be in employment as Senior Engineer in the Purchase Department of his employer viz., Heat and Control (South Asia) Pvt. Ltd., Chengalpattu. Therefore, the appeal on the aspect of future prospects does not require any consideration.

8. On the other aspects as pleaded, we are in agreement with Mr.Jaishankar. The Tribunal has concluded that the claimant has suffered 100% disability and that the second respondent failed to let in any contrary evidence. Having come to the conclusion that the appellant has suffered 100% disability, the grant of Rs.5 lakhs compensation on the ground of disability in our view, is very meager. The injuries suffered by the appellant has left a life- long effect, resulting in him becoming a paraplegic. A young man, who was going around in his motorcycle, is today, entirely dependent on a wheelchair for his movement. The medical report also points out that he is suffering from cellulitis of the lower limbs, sepsis, as well as, traumatic spinal cord injuries. The ailment that the appellant is suffering from would