R. Logeshkumar vs. P. Balasubramaniam

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1392
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025
(@ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 4845 of 2025)

R. LOGESHKUMAR … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

P. BALASUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENT(S)


J U D G M E N T

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal arises from the order dated 20.06.2022 in CMA (MD) No.
3343 of 2014 on the file of the Madras High Court, filed by the
Appellant/Claimant for enhancing the compensation of Rs.3,98,017/-
(Rupees three lakh ninety-eight thousand and seventeen) awarded by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in the Court of III Small Causes, Chennai
(“the Tribunal”) to Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh).
3. The Appellant’s case is that on 26.01.2012, he was riding a two-wheeler
bearing Registration No. TN 22 AU 0784 from Selaiyur to Medavakkam
towards the east. At Kamarajapuram junction, a jeep bearing Registration No.
TN 22 BL 7032 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite
direction without sounding a horn and hit the Appellant’s motorcycle. The
Signature Not Verified
accident resulted in grievous injuries to the Appellant. The said jeep was
Digitally signed by
CHETAN ARORA
Date: 2025.12.06
11:16:21 IST
Reason:
owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent,
1



Insurance Company. The Appellant filed a claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakh) as compensation in MCOP No. 2672 of
2013 on the file of the Tribunal.
4. The appeal is filed for the enhancement of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal and for the award of the claimed compensation. Therefore, the
averments and the evidence on the admitted position are not adverted to as
part of the narrative of the case. At the time of the accident, the Appellant was
stated to be 21 years of age and was working as an accounts assistant,
earning a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month. The Claimant examined
himself as PW1. The doctors who treated the Appellant, Dr. Kalkura and Dr.
Saichandran, were examined as PW2 and PW3, respectively. The Tribunal
marked 16 documents on the side of the Appellant. No oral or documentary
evidence was placed from the side of the Respondents.
5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,98,017/- (Rupees three lakh
ninety-eight thousand and seventeen) with interest at 7.5% per annum. The
Claimant filed CMA (MD) No. 3343 of 2014 seeking enhancement of
compensation. The High Court has taken note of the oral evidence of PW2 and
PW3, and the extent of disability the first Appellant suffered in the accident.
The High Court, through the impugned Judgment, redetermined the
compensation. For a quick grasp of the scope of the appeal, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court is stated as follows:

2

6. The High Court, as part of its consideration of functional disability, held
that the Appellant suffered from hemiparesis, disfigurement and brain
injuries leading to a 100% loss of earnings due to functional disability. The
finding further recorded that the Claimant had not produced any supporting
evidence to prove his salary at Rs. 9,000/- per month. The High Court, relying
on Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
1
Company Limited , held that the Claimant cannot be expected to produce
documents to prove his monthly income and fixed his monthly income at Rs.
6,500/-. The High Court, thus, enhanced the head – “Loss of Earning due to
Functional Disability” – to Rs. 12,48,000/- by increasing his income by Rs.
500/- and considering his Functional Disability as 100%.
7. Hence, the appeal for further enhancement of compensation.
8. We have heard Mr. T. Harish Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellant,
and Mr. Vishal Meghwal, learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company.
9. The Appellant claims enhancement of compensation under the
following heads:

1
(2014) 2 SCC 735.
3



a. Future Prospects are not taken note of and added to the monthly
salary arrived at by the High Court.
b. From the injuries suffered by the Appellant, he cannot be
expected to live independently, and a reasonable attendant
allowance to make life smooth should have been granted.
c. The claimant is entitled to reimbursement of actual medical
expenses of Rs. 1,08,000/-.
10. The insurance company opposes the enhancement on the ground that,
irrespective of the heads, the compensation awarded by the High Court is just
and fair. We have taken note of the submissions and perused the record. The
probable loss of monthly income of the Appellant has been arrived at by
applying the correct principle of law.
2
11. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others , this Court held that there
is no restriction on the Tribunal in awarding compensation exceeding the
claimed amount under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the function of the
Tribunal is to award just compensation which is reasonable based on the
evidence produced on record. Keeping in view the above ratio, in a given case,
the discretion to award compensation in excess of the amount claimed in the
petition is based on the evidence on record and for reasons recorded for
granting just and fair compensation. Taking note of the loss of monthly
rd
income, we deem it appropriate to add 1/3 of the salary as the future loss of
income, totalling to Rs 8667/-. The Appellant further claims a lump sum to
meet the expenses of an attender, enabling him to attend to his regular
household chores and functions. We keep in our perspective the age of the

2
2003 (2) SCC 271.
4



Appellant (21 years) during the incident and the requirement of a personal
attendant, and award a lump sum of Rs. 3,00,000/. Over and above the loss
of income arrived at by this Judgment and the High Court, the Appellant
claims reimbursement of medical expenses said to have been incurred while
undergoing treatment in the hospital. The Appellant did not bring evidence
on the amount spent on this behalf before the Tribunal. The evidence is
introduced as additional evidence before the High Court, and the High Court,
for reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, has not accepted this claim.
We wish not to express a view on the entitlement under this head, but by
taking the totality of circumstances, and the further enhancement granted by
this Judgment, the claim under this head is rejected.
12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to award
the Appellant, a just and fair compensation amounting to Rs 21,75,681/-
(Rupees Twenty One seventy-five thousand six hundred and eighty-one), and
is determined as follows:

5



13. The difference amount payable (from Rs. 21,75,681/-), over and above
the amount already paid, will carry an interest of 7.5% from the date of filing
the claim petition.
14. The Civil Appeal is allowed in part. The deficit court fee is to be
deposited before the Tribunal within six weeks from today. There is no order
as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

……….…………………J
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]




..…………………………J
[S.V.N. BHATTI]
New Delhi;
December 5, 2025
6