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) 37997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J
Allimuthu – Appellant
Versus
John Suresh – Respondent
C.M.A.No. 2582 of 2025 | M.C.O.P. No.4118 of 2017



Advocates:
For Appellant: Mr.K. Balaji
For Respondents: Mr. S. Senthil Kumar for R2

In motor accident claims, disability percentage assessed by Medical Board must be adopted if it affects lifelong earning capacity; arbitrary reduction by Tribunal without basis is erroneous, warranting enhancement via multiplier method.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173 - Motor accident claim appeal - Enhancement of compensation - Claimant sustained permanent locomotor knee arthrodesis/compound supracondylar femur fracture on right, assessed at 60% disability by Medical Board - Tribunal erroneously reduced disability to 40% despite adopting multiplier method - Disability affecting earning capacity throughout life must be taken as assessed by Medical Board - Notional income fixed at Rs.10,000/- with future prospects - Compensation under disability head enhanced to Rs.17,13,600/- (10000 + 4000 x 12 x 17 x 60/100) - Other heads just and reasonable - Total enhanced from Rs.13,18,400/- to Rs.18,89,600/- with 7.5% interest. (Paras 8, 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
Claimant riding two-wheeler dashed by oncoming van driven rashly and negligently, sustaining grievous injuries, hospitalized 32 days initially and total 160 days. Claimed Rs.16,00,000/-. Tribunal awarded Rs.13,18,400/- holding driver of offending vehicle negligent. Appellant sought enhancement alleging under-assessment of 60% disability, no attendant charges, future expenses, loss of marital prospects, low notional income.

Findings of Court:
Compensation enhanced to Rs.18,89,600/-; Insurance Company to deposit enhanced amount (less already deposited) with 7.5% interest from claim petition date within four weeks.

Issues: Whether Tribunal erred in reducing assessed 60% disability to 40%; adequacy of notional income, future prospects, and other compensation heads.

Ratio Decidendi: Disability as assessed by Medical Board (60%) to be adopted when affecting lifelong earning capacity; multiplier method correctly applied with notional income and future prospects; Tribunal's arbitrary reduction to 40% without basis unsustainable. (Paras 11, 12)

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. accident facts and tribunal's award (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. parties' contentions on compensation (Para 8)

JUDGME NT

This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the sum awarded in the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2024, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai), in M.C.O.P. No.4118 of 2017.

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

3. Shortly stated, on 03.10.2016, at about 14.00 hours, when the appellant / petitioner was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-11-H-3722 at Thirumudivakkam Main Road, a Van bearing Registration No.TN-22-CW-6525, which proceeded in the opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner’s vehicle, due to which the appellant / petitioner sustained grievous injuries and took medical treatment in Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital as an inpatient for 32 days and thereafter took treatment as in patient in various spells for nearly about 160 days.

4. The appellant / petitioner filed the above MCOP claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

5. The Claim petition was resisted by the respondents by stating that the petitioner is solely responsible for the accident and that the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and hence they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the of the 1st respondent vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.13,18,400/- to the appellant / petitioner. The Tribunal directed the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company to pay the said amount to the appellant /petitioner together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

7. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant / petitioner.

8. Mr. K. Balaji, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would contend that, the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability of the petitioner as 100% as he has suffered 60% permanent locomotor knee arthrodesis/compound supracondylar femur fracture on right. However, the Tribunal erroneously took the disability as 40%. He would further submit that the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards attendant charges as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nizam Institute of Medical Science vs. Prasanth S. Dhanaka reported in 2010 ACJ 38 (SC); that no amount was awarded towards future medical expenses, loss of marital prospects and future medical expenses ; that the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- which is very meagre and that the amounts awarded under the other heads are also very meagre. Hence prayed for enhancement of compensation.

9. On the other hand, Mr.S. Senthil Kumar, the learned counsel for the

2nd respondent / Insurance Company submitted that, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier method for the disability of 40%, which is unwarranted and also awarded huge amounts under all the heads, which warrants interference by this Court.

10. Heard on both sides. Records perused.

11. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the tribunal erred in adopting multiplier method, a perusal of the records shows that the appellant had suffered permanent locomotor knee Arthrodesis / compound supracondylar femur fracture on right and the Medical Board had assessed the disability of the petitioner at 60%. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier method by fixing the notional monthly income o

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