RAJA vs KARTHI

CMA No.1263 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 1263 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA010300312023}
Raja
S/O. Kandaswamy, 10/398, East Puliampatty,
Edanganasalai, Elampillai, Sankari Taluk, Salem
District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Karthi
S/O. Padmanabhan, 36/48, Bharathi Street,
Gugai, Salem District.
(Notice to R1 may be dispensed with
for the time being and separate petition is filed.)
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd
104A, Ranga Building, Peramanur Main Road,
Near Four Roads, Salem District. ..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order made in MCOP No.60 of 2019 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Special Subordinate Court
No.2, Salem dated 11.03.2020.
For Appellant(s ) : MR.C.Kulanthaivel
For R1 : Dispensed with
For R2 : Mr.S.Arunkumar
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )

CMA No.1263 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful claimant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 r/w
Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained by him, in a road accident.
3. According to the claimant, on 29.09.2018, at about 8.00 a.m., while he
was walking along Chinnappampatti – Elampillai Road, near Pappampatty
Petrol Bunk, a Yamaha motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-54-Q-7764,
proceeding in the same direction, was driven by its rider in a rash and negligent
manner and hit the claimant from behind. Due to the impact, the claimant
sustained multiple injuries all over his body.
4. It is the further case of the claimant that, at the time of the accident, he
was aged about 45 years, working as a power loom weaver and earning a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month.
5. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )

CMA No.1263 of 2023
6. The second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter
statement denying the manner of the accident .
7. Before the Tribunal, the claimant himself examined as P.W.1 and the
Doctor, Mr.Arun, was examined as P.W.2, and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On
the side of the second respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were
marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked .
8. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
found that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving
of the rider of the offending vehicle. With regard to the quantum of
compensation, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and the disability certificate
issued by him, assessing the permanent disability of the claimant at 47.6%, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- for each percentage of disability and
accordingly granted Rs.1,42,800/- towards permanent disability. The Tribunal
also awarded compensation under various other heads as detailed below:-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
1 Permanent Disability
( Rs.47.6% x Rs.3,000/-)

Rs.1,42,000/-
2 Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
3 Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/-
4 Medical Expenses ( as per Ex.P6 –
Medical bills)
Rs. 1,19,083/-
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )

CMA No.1263 of 2023
5 Loss of income during the treatment
period ( Rs.8,000/- x 6 months)
Rs. 48,000/-
6 Transportation charges Rs. 10,000/-
7 Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
9 Attender charges Rs. 10,000/-
10 Damage to clothes Rs. 1,000/-
Total Rs. 4,20,883/-
9. Aggrieved over the same, the claimant has preferred the present appeal
seeking enhancement.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would
submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant and also failed to properly appreciate the medical records produced
before it. The doctor who treated the claimant was examined as P.W.2 and
categorically deposed regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him. P.W.2
stated that the claimant had sustained a fracture of the right proximal tibia and
other fracture injuries. He further deposed that the fractured bones had
malunited, resulting in total loss of movements required for squatting, sitting
cross-legged and kneeling. He also deposed that the movements of the
claimant’s right leg were restricted to the extent of 30% and assessed his
permanent disability at 47.6%. Considering the nature of injuries and the
resultant permanent disability, it is evident that the injuries would have a
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )

CMA No.1263 of 2023
considerable impact on the claimant's earning capacity. Admittedly, the
claimant was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident and was working as
a power loom weaver. Having regard to the nature of his occupation, the
permanent disability sustained by him would certainly affect his ability to carry
on his avocation. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered adopting the
multiplier method instead of the percentage method while determining the
compensation towards permanent disability and loss of earning capacity.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would
further submit that the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the claimant at
Rs.8,000/-, which is on the lower side.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the claimant has not chosen
to appear before the Medical Board for assessment of the disability. P.W.2, the
doctor who treated the claimant has examined him and issued the disability
certificate assessing the disability at 47.6%. The said assessment was made
with reference to the restriction in the movements of the right leg alone and
cannot be treated as the whole body disability of the claimant. In the absence of
evidence establishing functional disability or loss of earning capacity, the
Tribunal has rightly adopted the percentage method, considering the nature of
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )

CMA No.1263 of 2023
injuries sustained by the claimant. The learned counsel would further submit
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability is
reasonable and there is no necessity to interfere with the same.
13.. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
14. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident. As
regards the quantum of compensation, considering the nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant and the medical evidence available on record, it is
evident that the injuries have resulted in permanent disability. However, the
question arise for consideration is whether the assessment of disability made by
P.W.2 at 47.6% can be accepted in its entirety. The Tribunal had adopted the
percentage method for awarding compensation towards permanent disability.
The claimant has also sought enhancement of the monthly income fixed by the
Tribunal at Rs.8,000/-.
15. It is also relevant to note that the claimant has not chosen to appear
before the Medical Board for assessment of his disability. From the evidence
of P.W2, the doctor who treated the claimant, it is evident that the claimant had
sustained fractures, which had subsequently malunited, resulting in total loss of
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )

CMA No.1263 of 2023
movements required for squatting, sitting crossed leg and kneeling. P.W.2 had
also issued Ex.P8 – the disability certificate, wherein it has been stated that the
movement of the claimant’s right leg was restricted to the extent of 30% and
that permanent disability was assessed at 47.6%.
16. However, a perusal of Ex.P8, the disability certificate issued by
P.W.2, reveals that the assessment was made by the treating doctor and not by a
Medical Board. Though the claimant had sustained injuries resulting in
permanent restriction of movements of his right leg, the assessment of disability
at 47.6% made by private doctor can not, in the absence of an assessment by the
medical Board, be accepted in its entirety. Having regard to the nature of
injuries and the medical evidence available on record, this Court is inclined to
fix the permanent disability of the claimant at 35%.
17. With regard to the quantum of compensation towards permanent
disability, the claimant was assessed by the treating doctor as having sustained
47.6% permanent disability. The Tribunal, by applying the ratio laid down by
this Court in Chinnathambi vs. Deepa and other reported in 2020 (1) TNMAC
617, awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. Considering the
nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the date of accident, this Court
is inclined to enhance the compensation to Rs.6,000/- for each percentage of
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )

CMA No.1263 of 2023
disability. Accordingly, considering the permanent disability at 35%, a sum of
Rs.2,10,000/- (Rs.6,000/- × 35%) is awarded under the head of permanent
disability. .
18. According to the claimant, he was aged about 45 years and was
working as a power loom waiver, earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- at the time of
accident. In the absence of proof of monthly income, the Tribunal fixed a sum
of Rs.8,000/- per month towards loss of income appears to be very meagre.
Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the period
of treatment and recovery, the award under the head of loss of income requires
modification. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of
the claimant at Rs.15,000/- as notional income. Further, considering the nature
of injuries sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment, this Court is
inclined to fix the period of loss of income at six months. Accordingly, a sum
of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.15,000/- × 6 months) is awarded under the head of loss of
income during the treatment period.
19. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal under the heads of permanent disability and loss of income alone
requires enhancement. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
other heads appears to be reasonable and does not warrant any interference.
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )

CMA No.1263 of 2023
20. In view of the above, the Tribunal also awarded compensation under
various other heads as hereunder :-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
1 Permanent Disability
( Rs.35% x Rs.6,000/-)

Rs. 2,10,000/-
2 Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
3 Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/-
4 Medical Expenses ( as per Ex.P6 –
Medical bills)
Rs. 1,19,083/-
5 Loss of income during the treatment
period ( Rs.15,000/- x 6 months)
Rs. 90,000/-
6 Transportation charges Rs. 10,000/-
7 Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
9 Attender charges Rs. 10,000/-
10 Damage to clothes Rs. 1,000/-
Total Rs. 5,30,083/-
rounded off to
Rs.5,30,000/-
21. In the result,
i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal by
enhancing from Rs.4,20,883/- to Rs.5,30,000/- together
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
of claim petition till the date of deposit (except the
period of default, if any).
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )

CMA No.1263 of 2023
iii) The second respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the entire award amount now determined by this
Court, (less the amount already deposited if any), within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.60 of 2019 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special
Subordinate Court No.2, Salem.
iv) On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to
withdraw the same with interest and cost by filing
necessary application before the Tribunal.
v) The claimant is directed to pay the Court fee, if required.
vi) The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to
the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered.
vii) The manner and mode of disbursement of compensation
shall be as per the order of the Tribunal. There shall be no
order as to costs.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KKD
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Court No.2, Salem.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )

CMA No.1263 of 2023
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
KKD
CMA No. 1263 of 2023
29-10-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )