L.Ponnusamy vs R.Balakrishnan
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA No. 3533 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 3533 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011431212026}
L.Ponnusamy ..Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. R.Balakrishnan
2. The Manager
National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.58, Rajaji Street,
Kangeyam, Tirupur Dt.
Now doing business at No.74-A,
Paramathi Road, Namakkal. ..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, to enhance the award amount passed vide Judgement and Decree
dated 19.03.2021 passed in MCOP.No.596 of 2018 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Presiding Officer/Sessions Judge, Special Court for
Trial of Cases, Registered under SC/CT (POA) Act, Namakkal.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Thangaraju. C
For R1 : Notice Dispensed with
For R2 : Mrs.N.B.Surekha
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:14 pm )
CMA No. 3533 of 2026
ORDER
Unsuccessful claimant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the fixation of
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 06.09.2017, at about 3.30 p.m., near the
Registration Office of Velagoundanpatti, on the Namakkal–Tiruchengode Road,
he was riding his two-wheeler from east to west on the left side of the road, with
his wife as the pillion rider. At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing
Registration No. TN 52 B 7183, which was proceeding from west to east in the
opposite direction, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
suddenly turned right without giving any signal, thereby hitting the claimant's
two-wheeler and causing the accident, due to the accident, the claimant
sustained grievous injuries, including a head injury with cerebral haemorrhage
and blood clots and serious injury to his right big toe, and other injuries all over
his body.
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:14 pm )
CMA No. 3533 of 2026
4. The first respondent, being the owner of the offending vehicle,
remained absent and was set ex parte before the Tribunal.
5. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter statement
denying the manner of the accident as alleged by the claimant. It was contended
that the driver of the lorry, while proceeding from west to east, had suddenly
taken a U-turn on the main road and that the claimant, who was riding his two-
wheeler in a rash and negligent manner, had hit the rear side of the lorry.
According to the second respondent, the accident occurred solely due to the
negligence of the claimant, who was responsible for the accident. It was further
contended that the second respondent was not liable to pay compensation to the
claimant.
6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined himself as P.W.1,
Dr.Palanivel was examined as P.W.2, and an eyewitness was examined as
P.W.3 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent,
R.W.1 was examined and Ex. R1 was marked.
7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on
either side, the Tribunal found that the claimant had hit the rear side of the
offending vehicle. However, it also observed that the driver of the offending
vehicle ought to have exercised due care and caution before turning across the
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:14 pm )
CMA No. 3533 of 2026
road and that the accident could have been averted had he verified the
movement of other vehicles on the road. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed
contributory negligence at 50% on the part of the claimant and 50% on the part
of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation
under various heads as hereunder:-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded by
the Tribunal
1 Permanent disability Rs 80,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 14,742/-
3 Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/-
4 Attender charges Rs. 1,500/-
5 Transportation Rs. 5,000/-
6 Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
7 Loss of income Rs. 4,500/-
Total
Rs.1,45,742/-
Deduction of 50% for contributory
negligence
Compensation payable
Rs, 72,871/-
-----------------
Rs. 72,871/-
-----------------
8. Aggrieved by the finding, fixing 50% contributory negligence on his
part and seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant has preferred the
present appeal.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit
that the Tribunal erred in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the
claimant. According to the learned counsel, the offending vehicle, while
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:14 pm )
CMA No. 3533 of 2026
proceeding from west to east, suddenly turned right towards the southern side in
an attempt to cross the road, thereby causing the accident. It is further
submitted that the Tribunal erroneously relied upon the closure of the criminal
case by the police as a mistake of fact and failed to properly appreciate the
evidence of the eyewitness. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the
Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, is
inadequate and ought to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also contended that
the amounts awarded towards extra nourishment and attendant charges are
meagre and require enhancement.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the claimant, while riding his
two-wheeler from east to west, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
and hit the rear side of the lorry. Therefore, it is contended that the accident
occurred solely due to the negligence of the claimant. The learned counsel
would further submit that, upon considering the evidence of R.W.1 and the
other materials available on record, the Tribunal rightly fixed contributory
negligence at 50% on the part of the claimant. With regard to the quantum of
compensation, it is submitted that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under
the various heads are just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference.
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:14 pm )
CMA No. 3533 of 2026
11. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
12. According to the claimant, on 06.09.2017, at about 3.30 p.m., while
he was riding his two-wheeler from east to west along with his wife as the
pillion rider, the offending vehicle, which was proceeding from west to east in
the opposite direction, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly
turned right without giving any signal, thereby causing the accident. In support
of his contention regarding negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle, the claimant relied upon the testimony of P.W.3, the eyewitness to the
occurrence. P.W.3 deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle suddenly
turned towards the right side of the road without giving any signal and that the
accident occurred due to his negligence of the said driver.
13. It is relevant to note that the offending vehicle is a Taurus lorry,
which is longer than an ordinary lorry. Though the claimant's two-wheeler hit
the rear side of the offending vehicle, the driver of the lorry ought to have
exercised due care and caution before turning and crossing the road. If the
driver of the offending vehicle, verified the movement of other vehicles on the
road and taken the necessary precautions before making the turn, the accident
could have been averted. At the same time, the claimant, who was riding the
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:14 pm )
CMA No. 3533 of 2026
two-wheeler, was also expected to maintain a proper lookout and control his
vehicle to avoid colliding with the lorry, if possible.
14. However, it is relevant to note that neither the driver of the offending
vehicle nor any other independent witness was examined to establish that the
claimant has also contributed to the occurrence of the accident. In the absence
of such evidence, and considering the testimony of P.W.3 that the driver of the
offending vehicle suddenly turned towards the right without giving any signal,
this Court is of the considered view that the fixation of 50% contributory
negligence on the part of the claimant is excessive. Accordingly, the
contributory negligence is re-fixed at 40% on the part of the claimant and 60%
on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
15. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is relevant to note that
the claimant did not appear before the Medical Board for assessment of his
disability and relied upon the Disability Certificate issued by the doctor, marked
as Ex. P14. As per evidence of P.W.2, the claimant sustained grievous injuries
and suffered permanent disability assessed at 16%. A perusal of the discharge
summary marked as Ex.P9 indicates that the claimant was treated
conservatively. In the circumstances, the Tribunal adopted a sum of Rs.5,000/-
for each percentage of disability and awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.5,000/-
x 16%) towards permanent disability.
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:14 pm )
CMA No. 3533 of 2026
16. The Tribunal also took into consideration the period of inpatient
treatment and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. The
compensation awarded under the other heads also appears to be reasonable and
does not warrant interference. Therefore, except for the modification of the
finding regarding contributory negligence, the award passed by the Tribunal
does not call for any further interference.
17. In view of the forgoing discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal
warrants modification only with regard to the contributory negligence and the
compensation awarded under the other heads is confirmed.
18. In the result,
i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the
extent indicated above.
iii) The second respondent / Insurance Company is directed
to deposit 60% of the total compensation of
Rs.1,45,742/- awarded by the Tribunal, amounting to
Rs.87,445.20/- rounded off to Rs.87,445/- together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
claim petition till the date of deposit (excluding the
default period, if any,) to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.596
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:14 pm )
CMA No. 3533 of 2026
of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/ Presiding Officer/Sessions Judge, Special
Court for Trial of Cases, Registered under SC/CT
(POA) Act, Namakkal, (less amount already deposited
if any) within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
iv) On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is
permitted to withdraw the modified award amount
along with the interest and costs, after adjusting the
amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary
application before the Tribunal.
v) The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard
to the mode of payment of compensation remains
unaltered.
vi) 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.
27.10.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KKD
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:14 pm )
CMA No. 3533 of 2026
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
KKD
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
C MA No. 3533 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:14 pm )