K.Sarangapani vs J.Arivuselvam
- Court
- Madras High Court
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
K.Sarangapani ... Appellant
Vs.
1. J.Arivuselvam
2. The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
NTG Complex,
No.14, Ramasamy Street,
West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
19.06.2023 passed in MCOP No.7 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur.
_________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
For Appellant : Mr.M.Tamizavel
R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan
J U D G M E N T
The unsuccessful claimant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. The claim petition has been filed under Section 140 and 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road
accident that took place on 09.06.2011.
3. According to the claimant, on 09.06.2011 at about 04.00 pm, the
claimant was riding his TVS Star City motorcycle bearing Registration No
TN 51 C 3579 towards Sannanallur Bazaar to Mudikondan main road from
south to north direction. When the claimant came near the left side of Periya
Pidari Amman Kovil, a Tata Ace bearing Registration No TN 50 H 1695
came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on
_________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
the claimant’s two wheeler, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and
got grievous injuries on his right leg and right leg knee and also sustained
multiple injuries all over his body.
4. The first respondent did not appear before the Tribunal and he was
called absent and was set ex parte.
5. The second respondent therein has filed a counter statement
wherein they denied the manner of accident. It is also stated that the accident
was not due to negligence of the first respondent’s driver but due to the
claimant himself.
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, the claimant was
examined himself as PW1, one Dr.Ansari was examined as PW2 and Ex.P1
to Ex.P14 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, no witness was
examined and no documents were marked. The disability certificate issued
by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1.
_________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
7. Upon appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
came to a conclusion that the accident had occurred only to due to rash and
negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle.
8. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considering
the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the claimant also
appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board assessed the
disability of the claimant as 24% of partial permanent disability and adopted
multiplier method and awarded compensation of Rs.72,000/- under the head
permanent disability. The Tribunal also awarded compensation under various
heads as hereunder :
S.No Heads Amount awarded by the
Tribunal
1. Disability 72,000/-
2. Pain and sufferings 50,000/-
3. Loss of income 18,000/-
4. Attender charges 12,000/-
5. Loss of amenities 10,000/-
6. Loss of cloths & others 500/-
7. Medical charges 2,500/-
8. Extra nourishment 10,000/-
_________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
S.No Heads Amount awarded by the
Tribunal
9. Transportation 1,000/-
Total Rs.1,76,000/-
9. Aggrieved over the same, the claimant has preferred this present
appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant / claimant would submit that
the Tribunal erroneously concluded that 24% locomotor disability will not
prevent the claimant in perform his duty at co-operative societies as well as
coolie. The injuries sustained by the claimant certainly would affect his day-
to-day activities which leads to loss of earning capacity. The injuries
sustained by the claimant would also lead to functional disability. The
Tribunal ought to have adopt the multiplier method. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads also very meagre and hence
prays to enhance the compensation.
_________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
11. Per contra learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance
Company would submit that upon appreciation of evidence adduced on
either side, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and
considering the disability assessed by the medical board, the Tribunal had
rightly awarded compensation, which does not require any interference by
this Court.
12. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the
second respondent and perusal the materials available on record.
13. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and the
entire negligence fixed on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The
only grievance of the claimant is that the Tribunal ought to have adopted
multiplier method and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
head disability has to be enhanced. It is seen from the records that the
claimant appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board assessed
the disability of the claimant as 24% of partial permanent disability. A
perusal of Ex.C1/disability certificate wherein it has been stated that the
_________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
claimant had taken the following treatment :
“ Post Traumatic Sequelea Right Thigh ”
There is no mention about the functional disability. According to the
claimant, he was doing agricultural coolie and was earning a sum of
Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimant was aged about 23 years at the time of
accident. It is relevant to note that in the absence of evidence of functional
disability and in the absence of evidence with regard to injuries sustained by
the claimant would lead loss of earning capacity, this Court is of the
considered view that considering the disability assessed by the Medical
Board 24% of partial permanent disability and the same will not prevent the
claimant in performing his duty at Cooperative Societies as well as coolie
and the Tribunal has rightly adopted percentage method. Considering the age
of the claimant at the time of accident and considering the year of accident,
the Tribunal has rightly fixed a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of
disability and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.72,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 24%)
under the head disability which does not require any interference. A perusal
of Ex.P2/Medical legal opinion and Ex.P4/discharge summary reveals that
the claimant had taken treatment as inpatient for about 47 days. The claimant
_________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
would have been suffered a lot due to the injuries. Considering the disability
percentage and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head pain and sufferings, which
appears to be meagre and this Court is inclined to enhance the same to a sum
of Rs.75,000/- under the head pain and sufferings.
13.1. According to the claimant, he was an agriculturist and was
earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month at the time of accident. In the absence
of proof of monthly income of the claimant, the Tribunal fixed a sum of
Rs.6,000/- as notional monthly income of the claimant which is meagre.
Considering the fact that the accident took place on 09.06.2011 and
considering the age of the claimant, this Court is inclined to fix a sum of
Rs.10,000/- as notional monthly income of the claimant. On account of the
accident, the claimant would not have been in a position to attend to his
work atleast for three months. Therefore, (Rs.10,000/- x 3) Rs.30,000/- is
enhanced towards loss of income. The compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the head extra nourishment and transportation are appears to
be meagre and the same are enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/-,
_________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
respectively. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads
are proper and reasonable which does not require any interference.
14. The following tabular column would show the amount enhanced
by this Court under various heads ;
S.No Heads Amount awarded by this
Court
1. Disability 72,000/-
2. Pain and sufferings 75,000/-
3. Loss of income
(Rs.10,000/- x 3)
30,000/-
4. Attender charges 12,000/-
5. Loss of amenities 10,000/-
6. Loss of cloths & others 500/-
7. Medical charges 2,500/-
8. Extra nourishment 20,000/-
9. Transportation 5,000/-
Total Rs.2,27,000/-
15. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.2,27,000/-. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
_________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
16. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.2,27,000/-.
iii. The appellant / claimant is directed to pay the court fee for the
enhanced compensation amount, if any, and the Registry is directed to
draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee.
iv. The second respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited,
Chennai, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of
Rs.2,27,000/- (less the amount already deposited) together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition
till the date of deposit to the credit of MCOP No.7 of 2012 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court,
Thiruvarur, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order/uploading of this order. As per order of this Court in
CMP No.9716 of 2026 dated 07.10.2026 the claimant is not entitled
for any interest on the enhanced compensation for the delay period, if
_________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
any.
v. On such deposit being made, the appellant / claimant is at liberty to
withdraw the same on filing appropriate application before the
Tribunal.
30.10.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
mtl
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
_________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.
mtl
C.M.A.No.3604 of 2026
30.10.2026
_________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:58:00 pm )