The court enhanced the compensation for permanent disability in a motor accident case, affirming the importance of assessing the claimant's earning capacity post-injury.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.M.A.No. 16 of 2026 S.Saranbabu, S/o Selvaraj alias Selvaraji, Murugankoil Street, Mavadipalayam, Tirumanikuzhi, Cuddalore Taluk 607 401 ..Appellant(s)

Vs

1. S.Annakannu, W/o. Saravanan, No 29, Keelakuttapatti, Vaigainallur Post, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District - 639 120.

2. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., DO, 13A, Nethaji Road, Cuddalore - 607001.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree dated 10.09.2025 in M.C.O.P.No.386 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.

For Appellant(s): Ms.Ramya V.Rao For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan for R2 R1 – Served – No appearance

Judgment

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Award and Decree dated 10.09.2025 in M.C.O.P.No.386 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.

2.It is the case of the claimant that he met with a road traffic accident on

20.10.2021 at about 10.30 a.m. while riding his motorcycle Bajaj Pulsar bearing Registration No. PY-01-BY-5051 on the Cuddalore–Viruthachalam Road. At that time, a Goods Carrier bearing Registration No. TN-28-M-7083, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant’s motorcycle. Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries, including fracture of the left humerus bone and head injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, where he underwent treatment as an inpatient from 20.10.2021 to 04.11.2021, and thereafter continued treatment as an outpatient. Prior to the accident, the claimant was a 20-year-old healthy young man and was earning approximately Rs.15,000/- per month through coolie work. Due to the injuries and the permanent disability suffered in the accident, he was unable to continue his work as before and suffered both physical and financial loss. Therefore, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence including the FIR, medical records, discharge summary and disability certificate, held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Goods Carrier. The Tribunal further observed that the claimant sustained a fracture injury and permanent disability assessed at 29%. However, instead of applying the multiplier method, the Tribunal adopted the percentage method and fixed the compensation for disability at Rs.7,000/-

per percentage and awarded compensation of Rs.3,83,000/- to the claimant.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal, though correctly fixing negligence on the vehicle of the 1st respondent, failed to award just and adequate compensation to the injured appellant. The appellant sustained a fracture of the left proximal humerus and the Medical Board assessed 29% partial permanent disability. However, the Tribunal wrongly adopted the percentage method and awarded only Rs.7,000/- per percentage, without considering the functional disability and its impact on the appellant’s earning capacity, instead of applying the multiplier method. The Tribunal also failed to properly appreciate the oral evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence (Ex.P2 Accident Register, Ex.P3 Discharg