KALAISELVAN vs SUDHARSANAM
- Court
- Madras High Court
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
Kalaiselvan ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Sudharsanam
2. The United India Insurance Company Limited
Motor III Party Cell,
No.134, Shillingi Building,
Greams Road, Chennai – 6. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25.09.2023
passed in MCOP No.5415 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, V Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Sivakumar
R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Ms.R.Sreevidhya
_________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
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 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident
that took place on 11.12.2015.
3. According to the claimant, on 11.12.2015 at about 22.15 hours,
while the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing
Registration No. TN 20 CH 0652 at Mylapore Otthukottai Taluk, near
Vinayagar Koil, at that time an another motorcycle bearing Registration No
TN 20 BJ 4506 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came from
the opposite direction, extremely wrong side of the road and dashed against
the claimant and caused the accident. Due to the accident, he sustained
multiple injuries all over his body.
_________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
4. The first respondent did not appear before the Tribunal and he was
called absent and was set ex parte.
5. The second respondent / Insurance Company has filed a counter
statement wherein they denied the manner of accident. It is also stated that
the first respondent had no valid and effective driving license to drive the
vehicle on the date of the accident.
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, the claimant
examined himself as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On behalf of
the second respondent, RW1 & RW2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5
were marked. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was
marked as Ex.C1.
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 rider of the offending vehicle
_________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
8. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has
awarded compensation under various heads as hereunder :
S.No Heads Amount awarded by the
Tribunal
1. Disability 80,000/-
2. Medical expenses Nil
3. Loss of income 30,000/-
4. Pain and sufferings 30,000/-
5. Mental agony 20,000/-
6. Transportation expenses 20,000/-
7. Nutrition expenses 20,000/-
8. Damages to clothes 1,000/-
9. Attender charges 6,500/-
10. Loss of amenities 30,000/-
Total
Less : 25% Contributory
negligence
Rs.2,37,500/-
Rs.59,375/-
Rs.1,78,125/- rounded off
to Rs.1,78,200/-
9. Aggrieved over the same, the claimant has preferred this present
appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
_________
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
10. The learned counsel for the appellant / claimant would submit that
the Tribunal failed to consider the nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant, since the claimant unable to do his day to day activities. Because
of this accident, the claimant cannot able to continue his job his avocation
was totally affected. The Tribunal ought to have considered the injuries
sustained by the claimant as functional disability and have awarded under
the head future loss of earning power by adopting multiplier method.
However, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.4,000/- per disability, which is
not proper. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads
are very meagre and the same has to be enhanced. The learned counsel
further would submit that the Tribunal fixed 25% negligence on the part of
the claimant on the ground that the claimant not possessed valid driving
license and did not wearing helmet at the time of accident is unsustainable in
law.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance
Company would submit that upon appreciation of evidence adduced on
_________
Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
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 as well as 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 rider of the offending vehicle. It is
also not in dispute, at the time of accident the claimant was not wearing
helmet. It is relevant to note that the claimant had sustained right temporal
parietal EDH, left frontal parietal craniectomy evacuation of EDH, left
frontal fracture and other serious multiple injuries all over the body. A
perusal of Ex.P2/discharge summary reveals that the claimant was treated as
inpatient at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital from 12.12.2015 to
24.12.2015. A perusal of Ex.P3/out-patient note reveals that the claimant had
taken treatment as out-patient from 08.01.2016 to 02.07.2018. It is relevant
_________
Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
to note that at the time of accident, the claimant not wearing helmet and the
Tribunal fixing 25% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is
not proper. This Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant was
travelling as pillion rider in a motorcycle and this Court is inclined to fix
10% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant instead of 25%.
14. With regard to quantum of compensation, the claimant has
appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board assessed the
disability of the claimant at 20%, wherein it has been mentioned that the
disability assessed in a particular part of the claimant, not whole body.
According to the claimant, he was working as supervisor in a private
company due to the disability, his working capacity is affected, however he
has not produced any documents to substantiate the same. The Tribunal
fixed a sum of Rs.4,000/- per percentage of disability and accordingly,
awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 20%) under the head of
disability. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of
proof of functional disability and in the absence of proof of loss of earning
capacity, the Tribunal has rightly adopted percentage method and awarded
_________
Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
compensation under the head disability, which appears to proper and
reasonable and does not require any interference.
15. With regard to loss of income, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the claimant. Considering the
fact that the accident took place on 11.12.2015; the claimant was aged about
25 years at the time of accident and considering the nature of his avocation,
fixation of Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income is not proper and this
Court is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month as notional income
of the claimant would meet the ends of justice. Considering the nature of
injuries sustained by the claimant, the claimant ought to have lost his earning
atleast for a period of three months and therefore, a sum of Rs.39,000/-
(Rs.13,000/- x 3) is enhanced under the head loss of income. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads appears to be
proper and reasonable and does not require any interference.
16. The following tabular column would show the enhanced amount
awarded by this Court :
_________
Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
S.No Heads Amount awarded by the
Tribunal
1. Disability 80,000/-
2. Loss of income 39,000/-
3. Pain and sufferings 30,000/-
4. Mental agony 20,000/-
5. Transportation expenses 20,000/-
6. Nutrition expenses 20,000/-
7. Damages to clothes 1,000/-
8. Attender charges 6,500/-
9. Loss of amenities 30,000/-
Total
Less : 10% Contributory
negligence
Rs.2,46,500/-
Rs.24,650/-
Rs.2,21,850/-
17. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.2,21,850/-. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
18. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.2,21,850/-.
_________
Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
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.2,21,850/- (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.5415 of 2016 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Small Causes Court,
Chennai, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order/uploading of this order.
v. On such deposit being made, the appellant / claimant is at liberty to
withdraw the same on filing appropriate application before the
Tribunal.
28.10.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
mtl
_________
Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.
mtl
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
V Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.2375 of 2024
28.10.2026
_________
Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )