K.LINGESHWAR vs M/S.GOOD TRACK CALL TAXI PVT.
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA010933562024}
K.Lingeshwar
S/o. D.Kumaran, No. 30/48,
30th Street, GKM Colony,
Chennai 600 082. ..Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. M/s.Good Track Call Taxi Pvt.
No.234/236, Arcot Road,
Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024.
(R1 was set exparte before the Tribunal)
2. United India Insurance Co Ltd.
Motor Third Party Claims Hub,
Silingi Buildings,
No. 134, Greams Road,
Chennai 600 006. .. Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the contributory negligence on the part of the
th
appellant to enhance the award against the order dated 7 day of December
2023 made in M.C.O.P. No.1194 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (3rd Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Rajanandhini
Mr.V.Venkatesan
For R1 : Notice dispensed withdraw
For R2 : Dr.C.Paranthaman
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful claimant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the fixation of
30% contributory negligence on his part.
2. Claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, in a road
accident.
3. According to the claimant, on 24.08.2017, at about 9.00 hrs., while he
was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 05 BC 5941 from GKM
Colony towards Senthamangalam on the Chennai–Bengaluru National
Highway, in the east-to-west direction, on the southern side of the road, a maxi
cab bearing Registration No. TN 11 R 7923, driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner, was proceeding in the same direction on the northern side of
the road. Suddenly, the driver of the maxi cab turned the vehicle towards the
left side, without giving any indication or signal. Consequently, the claimant
lost control of his motorcycle and met with the accident. Due to the accident,
the claimant sustained multiple injuries all over his body.
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
4. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
5. The second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter
statement denying the manner of the accident.
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself
was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. On the side of the
second respondent, no witness was examined and no documents were marked.
Ex.C1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board.
7. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal
found that P.W.1 during his cross-examination had admitted that the offending
vehicle was proceeding in the same direction and suddenly turned towards the
left, resulting in the claimant losing control of his motorcycle, On the basis of
the said admission, the Tribunal held that the claimant had also contributed to
the accident and accordingly, fixed 30% contributory negligence on his part.
The claimant appeared before the Medical Board, which assessed his permanent
disability at 35%. By applying the ratio laid down by this Court in
Chinnathambi vs. Deepa and other reported in 2020 (1) TNMAC 617, the
Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.5,000/- for each percentage of disability and
awarded compensation under the head of permanent disability. The Tribunal
also awarded compensation under various other heads as hereunder :-
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
1 Disability Rs.1,75,000/-
2 Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-
3 Transportation Rs. 4,000/-
4 Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
5 Attender charges Rs. 1,500/-
6 Damage to clothes Rs. 1,000/-
7 Loss of amenities Rs. 3,000/-
9 Loss of earnings Rs. 16,000/-
Total
Rs.2,30,500/-
Deduction of 30% for contributory
negligence
Compensation payable
Rs. 69,150/-
---------------
Rs.1,61,350/-
---------------
rounded off to
Rs.1,61,400/-
8. Aggrieved over the same, the claimant has preferred the present appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation and also challenging the fixation of 30%
contributory negligence on his part.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit
that, in the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the Insurance Company
to establish the alleged negligence on the part of the claimant, the Tribunal
ought not to have fixed 30% contributory negligence on him. It is further
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
submitted that the first respondent, being the owner of the offending vehicle,
has not preferred any appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the fixation of 30% contributory negligence on the part of the
claimant is contrary to the evidence available on record and is liable to be set
aside. The learned counsel would further submit that the accident occurred on
24.08.2017, the Tribunal ought to have fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- for each
percentage of disability instead of Rs.5,000/-. It is also contended that the
Tribunal failed to consider the medical bills produced by the claimant under
Ex.P6 and that the compensation awarded under the other heads is meagre and
requires enhancement.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the claimant himself
admitted during his cross-examination that the offending vehicle was
proceeding in the same direction and suddenly turned towards the left, as a
result of which, he lost control of his motorcycle. The said admission clearly
establishes that the claimant had also failed to control his vehicle and had
contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal was
justified in fixing 30% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant,
which does not warrant any interference. With regard to the quantum of
compensation, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
the period of inpatient treatment, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable
and the same does not require any interference.
11. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
12. It is relevant to note that the accident took place on 24.08.2017, at
about 9.00 a.m. The claimant was riding his motorcycle from GKM Colony
towards Senthamangalam on the Chennai–Bengaluru National Highway,
proceeding in the east-to-west direction on the southern side of the road. At that
time, the maxi cab bearing Registration No. TN 11 R 7923 was proceeding on
the same road and suddenly turned towards the left, without giving any
indication or signal, As a result, the claimant lost control of his motorcycle and
met with the accident.
13. In order to establish the manner of the accident, the claimant himself
was examined as P.W.1, and he narrated the circumstances leading to the
accident. During his cross-examination, he admitted that the offending vehicle
was proceeding in the same direction and suddenly turned towards the left. It is
relevant to note that neither the driver of the offending vehicle nor any
independent witness was examined on the side of the Insurance Company to
substantiate its contention regarding the negligence of the claimant. In the
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
absence of any contra evidence, the fixation of 30% contributory negligence on
the part of the claimant by the Tribunal is excessive. However, considering the
admission made by P.W.1 during his cross-examination that he was unable to
control his motorcycle when the offending vehicle suddenly turned towards the
left, this Court is inclined to reduce the contributory negligence on the part of
the claimant from 30% to 5%.
14. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the claimant appeared
before the Medical Board, which assessed his permanent disability at 35%. The
Tribunal, by applying the ratio laid down by this Court in Chinnathambi’s case
(cited supra) , awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per percentage of disability.
Considering the fact that the accident occurred on 24.08.2017, this Court is
inclined to enhance the compensation to Rs.6,000/- for each percentage of
disability. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rs.6,000/- × 35%) is awarded
under the head of permanent disability.
15. It is relevant to note that the claimant relied upon the duplicate
medical bills issued by Cauvery Hospital for a sum of Rs.87,853/- under Ex.P6.
However, the person authorised to issue the said medical bills was not examined
to substantiate the genuineness of the bills, nor were the supporting documents
enclosed along with Ex.P6. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting
Ex.P6 medical bills.
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
16. On a perusal of Ex.P4, it is evident that the claimant sustained a “split
fracture lateral tibial condyle, a right galleazzi fracture dislocation - left”. He
was admitted as an inpatient at M.S. Hospital, Chennai, from 26.08.2017 to
30.08.2017, and a surgery was performed on 27.08.2017. Considering the
nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the period of inpatient
treatment, a sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain
and suffering appears to be meagre. Hence, this Court is inclined to enhance the
compensation under the said head to Rs.30,000/-.
17. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards transportation
charges. Considering the nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone by
the claimant, the same is enhanced to Rs.8,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/-
awarded under the head of extra nourishment also appears to be meagre. Hence,
this Court is inclined to enhance the same to Rs.25,000/-. The claimant had
undergone inpatient treatment for five days at M.S. Hospital. Considering the
period of hospitalisation and the nature of injuries sustained, a sum of
Rs.1,500/- awarded towards attendant charges is also meagre. Hence, this Court
is inclined to enhance the same to Rs.5,000/-.
18. According to the claimant, he was working as a Mechanical Engineer
and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. In support of his claim, he
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
produced Ex.P9, the offer letter dated 18.09.2017, issued by a private concern,
and Ex.P10, the salary slip issued by Steller Value Chain Solution Private
Limited, Mumbai. On a perusal of Ex.P10, it is evident that the claimant had
drawn a sum of Rs.20,408/- for the month of June 2018. However, the claimant
has not chosen to examine his employer to substantiate the genuineness of
Ex.P10 and to establish that the salary mentioned therein was actually paid to
him. In the absence of sufficient evidence to prove his monthly income, this
Court finds that the Tribunal was justified in fixing the notional monthly income
of the claimant at Rs.16,000/-, and the same is hereby confirmed.
19. However, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the
claimant and the period of treatment, this Court is inclined to fix the treatment
period at three months. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.16,000/- × 3
months) is awarded under the head of loss of income during the treatment
period. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the other heads appears to be reasonable and does not warrant any
interference.
20. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to modify
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the various heads as detailed
below :-
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded
by this Court
1 Disability (Rs.6,000/- × 35%) Rs.2,10,000/-
2 Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-
3 Transportation Rs. 8,000/-
4 Extra nourishment Rs. 25,000/-
5 Attender charges Rs. 5,000/-
6 Damage to clothes Rs. 1,000/-
7 Loss of amenities Rs. 3,000/-
9 Loss of earnings Rs. 48,000/-
Total
Rs.3,30,000/-
Deduction of 5% for contributory
negligence
Compensation payable
Rs. 16,500/-
---------------
Rs.3,13,500/-
---------------
21. In the result,
i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The finding of the Tribunal fixing 30% contributory
negligence on the part of the claimant is modified and
reduced to 5%.
iii) The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal by
enhancing from Rs.1,61,400/- to Rs.3,13,500/- 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).
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
iv) 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.1194
of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/ III Court of Small Causes, Chennai .
v) On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to
withdraw the same with interest and cost after adjusting
the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary
applications before the Tribunal.
vi) The claimant is directed to pay the Court fee, if required.
vii) The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to
the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered.
viii) 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.
30.10.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking : Non Speaking Order
KKD
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
KKD
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Court of Small Causes, Chennai .
CMA No. 1295 of 2024
30-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:06:27 pm )