SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23813

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MRS. K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J
Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
N.Murugan – Respondent
C.M.A.No.3726 of 2025 | M.C.O.P.No.944 of 2021



Advocates:
For Appellant: Mr. S.P.Yuaraj
For Respondent: R1 served no appearance, Mr.M.B.Raghavan for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates for R2

The court emphasized that reasonable compensation must reflect the severity of injuries and loss of earning capacity, enhancing the original award based on new assessments of disability and income.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Compensation for injuries sustained in an accident - The appellant was awarded Rs.6,48,678/- by the Tribunal; however, this amount was enhanced to Rs.8,25,678/- by this court considering the severity of the injuries and the loss of earning capacity. (Paras 6, 14, 15)

(B) Negligence - The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent’s vehicle driver as established by the Tribunal's findings. (Paras 6, 12)

(C) Assessment of Disability - Tribunal's method was contested; the appellant's partial permanent disability was assessed at 55%. The court upgraded compensation for this from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per percentage. (Paras 13, 15)

(D) Appeal - Court cannot interfere if the Tribunal's findings are reasonable based on the available evidence. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, while riding his two-wheeler, was struck by a TATA Ace vehicle driven recklessly by the first respondent, resulting in grievous injuries requiring medical treatment. The appellant sought compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for his injuries.

Findings of Court:
The original compensation was deemed insufficient considering the appellant's age, nature of injuries, and resulting disability, leading to a modification in the awarded amount.

Issues: The main issue centered on the adequacy of compensation awarded vis-a-vis the appellant's injuries and loss of income.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the injuries warranted a higher compensation that reflected the appellant's substantial loss of capacity to earn due to disability and suffering caused by the accident.

Result: Appeal partly allowed with the compensation enhanced to Rs.8,25,678/-.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 6)
2. arguments regarding compensation claims. (Para 5 , 8 , 10)
3. court's analysis of injury assessment. (Para 12 , 13)
4. modification of compensation award. (Para 14)
5. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 15)

JUDGME NT

This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred against the Order M.C.O.P.No.944 of 2021 dated 07.02.2025 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the claim petition.

3. Shortly stated, on 18.11.2020 at about 10.am, the petitioner was travelling from Chinnamattarapalli Village on his two wheeler Yamaha Scooty bearing Registration No.TN 24 AF 7267 by following all traffic rules. While he was proceeding on the Kuppam - Krishnagiri NH road near HP Petrol Bunk, a TATA Ace vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 29 BV 1983 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner, overtook the petitioner on the left side and suddenly turned right and hit the petitioner’s vehicle. Due to the said accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries on his head and all over his body. He was treated at Krishnagiri Neuro Care Hospital. FIR was filed against the 1st respondent.

4. The claimant filed the above MCOP claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

5. The 2nd respondent / Insurance Company resisted the said petition by stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the appellant / claimant, that the 1st respondent’s vehicle driver did not have a valid driving licence and hence they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6.The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the 1st respondent vehicle and that the claimant is entitled to claim compensation. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.6,48,678/- to the claimant and directed the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company to pay the said award amount, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

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

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would contend that, the appellant was 40 years old at the time of accident and sustained severe grievous injuries, including a laceration parietal region, fracture parietal bone, left parietal and temporal contusion with diffuse cerebral edema. The Tribunal failed to consider that the permanent injuries resulted in the Medical Board assessing 55% partial permanent disability which impairs his ability to carry out his professional duties. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier method instead of percentage method. He further submitted that the appellant was a Carpenter and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal, without assigning any valid or justifiable reason, reduced the monthly income of the appellant to Rs.12,000/-. It is further submitted that due to the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant, resulted in loss of earning capacity and depreciation of his livelihood. The medical board has assessed the partial permanent disability as 55% whereas the tribunal has awarded only Rs.7000/- per percentage which is very meagre. The Tribunal failed to award reasonable amount for transport expenses, pain & sufferings and extra nourishments.

Hence prayed for enhancement of compensation.

9. Despite notice there is no representation on the side of the 1st respondent.

10. The learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/Insur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top