IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI Karunanithi ... Appellant Versus

1. Venkatesh

2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 50-A, Pallivasal Street, Perumbalur. ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, pleased to enhance the award made in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2020, dated 28.10.2022, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-Judge, Ariyalur.

For Appellant : Mr. S. Kamadevan For R2 : Mr. D. Bhaskaran R1 – Ex-Parte

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2020, dated 28.10.2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-Judge, Ariyalur.

2. Briefly stated, on 07.10.2020 at about 5.00 pm when the petitioner was riding his two wheeler, TVS XL Super bearing Reg.No.TN-61-P-7698 on the left side of Ariyalur-Thiruvaiyaru Main Road, near Punavasal Cut Road, following the traffic rules and regulations, a Bharath Benx Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-31-BJ-8299 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and endangering public safety came from the opposite direction and dashed against the petitioner. As a result of the accident, the petitioner got thrown out of his vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Thiruvaiyur for first-aid and thereafter was admitted at Thanjore Medical College Hospital. He was treated as an inpatient from 07.10.2020 to 09.11.2020 and is still undergoing treatment. The 1^st respondent is the owner/driver of the vehicle and the 2^nd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle and hence both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner with interest and cost. The claimant filed the above M.C.O.P claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the said accident.

3.The 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company resisted by the claim petition by stating that the 1^st respondent was driving carefully adhering to the traffic rules and regulations blowing horn and that it was the petitioner who came in the middle of the road and was driving in a rash and negligent manner. The accident happened due to the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Hence, the 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company is not liable for payment of any compensation to the claimant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4.The claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to a conclusion that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-31-BJ-8299 belonging to the 2^nd respondent/Insurance and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,38,500/- to the claimant.

5.Seeking enhancement of compensation, the present civil miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be considered as just and reasonable as the appellant is permanently disabled and that the tribunal ought to have applied multiplier method. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the tribunal did not take note of the 85% disability assessed by the medical board and that the tribunal should have awarded compensation including future prospects. He further submitted that the loss of income at Rs.7,500/- is unjustified when the appellant was inpatient for more than 40 days. The award under transportation, extra nourishment and pain and suffering is very meagre when the appellant is just 45 years old. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, which warrants any interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides. Records perused.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the ye