IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 18.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.

Muniraj …Appellant Vs.

1. Murugan

2. The Branch Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Peninsula Business Park, Tower A, 15th Floor, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. …Respondents Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, against the Award dated 10.03.2025 made in M.C.O.P. No.344 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.

For Appellant : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj For Respondents : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan for R2 R1 – No appearance

JUDGMENT

This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the sum awarded in M.C.O.P.

No.344 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.

2. Shortly stated, on 15.12.2020 at about 17.00 hours, while the appellant/claimant was riding the Two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-70-Y-4919 at Krishnagiri-Rayakottai Road, near Kodukoor Bus Stop, a Hero Honda Splendor two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-24-AQ-0227, belonging to the 1^st respondent, ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the appellant's two wheeler, due to which, the appellant sustained injuries. After the accident the appellant was treated at Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, and at Sri Saraswathi Hospital, Krishnagiri.

3. The claimant filed the above MCOP claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding on the part of the rider of the 1^st respondent's vehicle and that the claimant is entitled to claim compensation. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- to the claimant and directed the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company to pay the said award amount, at the first instance, and then recover the same from the 1^st respondent, since the rider of the 1st respondent's two wheeler did not possess a valid driving license on the date of accident.

4. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would contend that, the appellant / claimant was an agriculturist and motor mechanic at the time of accident, earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. However, the Tribunal erroneously assessed his income only at Rs.10,000/- per month, and hence, the same has to be enhanced. He further contended that, taking the disability sustained by the appellant into consideration, the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier method for calculating loss of earning capacity of the appellant/claimant. However, the Tribunal adopted per percentage method and awarded only Rs.5,000/- per percentage disability for 30% partial permanent disability sustained by the appellant. He would further contend that, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income for the period of three months only, however, the fact is that, he was out of action for more than six months and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are also very meagre. Hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent /

Insurance Company submitted that, the Tribunal has considered the materials on record and had awarded 'just compensation' which requires any interference by this Court.

7. Heard on both sides. Records perused.

8. On a perusal of the impugned Award, it is seen that, since no document has been produced by the appellant/ claimant to prove his avocation, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the appellant/ claimant