Madras High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Madras HC Cuts Injured Toddler’s Marriage-Prospects Award From ₹3 Lakh To ₹2 Lakh, Citing No Lasting Disfigurement

M/s Shirram General Ins.Co. Ltd.,v.M.DEEKSHITHA (MINOR)

Madras HC Cuts Injured Toddler’s Marriage-Prospects Award From ₹3 Lakh To ₹2 Lakh, Citing No Lasting Disfigurement. M/s Shirram General Ins.Co. Ltd., vs M.DEEKSHITHA (MINOR). Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹3,00,000 for the minor claimant’s marriage prospects was justified on the evidence.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed.

It also directed

The total compensation was reduced from ₹7,75,000 to ₹6,75,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit.

The insurer was directed to deposit the modified amount, less any sum already deposited, within six weeks; the claimant may withdraw it in accordance with the Tribunal’s disbursement order.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The minor claimant, aged two at the time, was injured when a car struck her while she was walking in Chennai on 11 April 2022.

p. 2

She sustained injuries requiring hospitalisation and two surgeries; a Medical Board assessed her disability at 13%.

p. 2, 5

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the car’s driver negligent and awarded ₹7,75,000, including ₹3,00,000 for marriage prospects.

p. 3

The insurer appealed, challenging the quantum, particularly the award for marriage prospects.

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹3,00,000 for the minor claimant’s marriage prospects was justified on the evidence.

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether the compensation awarded under the other heads required appellate interference.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The claim arose under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal was brought under Section 173 of that Act.

pp. 1–2

The judgment applied the general principle that compensation under individual heads must be supported by the evidence and circumstances of the injury.

It cited no specific precedent or further statutory rule.

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court noted the claimant’s injuries, hospitalisation, surgeries and assessed 13% disability, and found the Tribunal’s awards under the other heads reasonable.

p. 5

However, it considered the ₹3,00,000 award for marriage prospects excessive: the record did not establish lasting disfigurement or disability warranting that amount.

pp. 4–5

It therefore reduced that component to ₹2,00,000 while leaving the remaining heads undisturbed.

p. 5

05Holding

The appeal was partly allowed.

pp. 5–6

The total compensation was reduced from ₹7,75,000 to ₹6,75,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit.

pp. 5–6

The insurer was directed to deposit the modified amount, less any sum already deposited, within six weeks; the claimant may withdraw it in accordance with the Tribunal’s disbursement order.

p. 6

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

p. 6
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

M/s Shirram General Ins.Co. Ltd.,vsM.DEEKSHITHA (MINOR)

Madras High Court · November 02, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment