IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 16.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.

S. Abdul Akbar …Appellant Vs.

1. P. Balakrishnan

2. The Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited, Motor Third Party Hub, Regina Manison, No.46, 3rd Floor, Moore Street, Chennai 600 001. …Respondents Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, to modify the Order dated 21.11.2023 made in M.C.O.P. No.2344 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr. S. Ravi Kumar For Respondents : Mr.J. Michael Visuvasam for R2 R1 – Notice dispensed with.

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.2344 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. Shortly stated, on 12.02.2018, at about 10.20 a.m., when the appellant/ claimant was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 10 BA 1713 at Maduravoyal-Alambakkam, proceeding in south-north direction, opposite to Parvathy Ammal Thirumana Mahal, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 22 AX 3331, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the two wheeler of the appellant/claimant, from behind, due to which, he sustained multiple fractures in Rib Cage including the right clavicle bone.

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 driving of the driver of lorry belonging to the 1^st respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- to the appellant/claimant and directed the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company to pay the said compensation to the appellant/claimant, in the first instance and then recover the same from the 1^st respondent since the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle did not have valid driving license.

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 Medical Board assessed the disability of the injured claimant as 42% permanent in nature and considering the serious nature of injuries, the tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier method and that, considering the year of accident, fixing a sum of Rs.4,000/- per percentage of injury is very meagre. He further submitted that though the appellant/claimant was doing his own business and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, the tribunal fixed a meagre sum of Rs.10,000/- as notional monthly income of the injured claimant and the same needs to be enhanced. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under the other heads also need to be enhanced.

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

Insurance Company submitted that, the Tribunal has considered the material 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 at Rs.10,000/-. However, considering the year of accident, this Court deems it fit to fix the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.12,000/- and accordingly, compensation towards loss of income for the period of three months is calculated as Rs.36,000/-. Considering the year of accident, it would be appropriate to fix Rs.7,000/- per percentage disability. Accordingly, Rs.2,94,000/- (7000x42) is awarded towards disability. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of ‘pain and sufferings’ is enhanced to Rs.