01Facts
The claimant alleged that on 31 May 2017, while riding his two-wheeler, he was struck by a two-wheeler ridden by the first respondent, causing injuries and hospitalisation.
pp. 1–2He sought compensation from the vehicle’s owner and insurer.
pp. 1–2The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tindivanam awarded ₹5,25,049.
pp. 1–2The claimant appealed, challenging the finding on negligence and seeking enhancement of compensation.
pp. 1–2The High Court partly allowed the appeal; a subsequent order dated 2 November 2026 directed that “No costs” be inserted in paragraph 10 of the judgment.
pp. 1–2, 5–6, 8–902Issues
i.1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement in light of the claimant’s disability, period of incapacity, hospitalisation and related expenses
pp. 3–5ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s finding on negligence required interference, an issue raised in the appeal but not separately analysed in the judgment
pp. 3–403Law Applied
The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.
p. 1The Court assessed compensation by considering the evidence and the claimant’s injuries and circumstances, including the percentage of disability, likely period away from work, duration of hospitalisation and amounts awarded under individual heads.
pp. 4–5The judgment cites no other statutory provision or precedent.
pp. 4–5Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Court considered the Tribunal’s award and the claimant’s submissions concerning his injuries and 17-plus days of inpatient treatment.
p. 5It increased the disability rate from ₹5,000 to ₹7,000 per percentage for 15% disability, and assessed loss of income for six months rather than three.
p. 5It also increased compensation for pain and suffering, nutrition and attendant charges, while confirming the amounts under the remaining heads.
p. 5Although negligence was identified as a ground of appeal, the judgment contains no separate analysis of that challenge.
pp. 3–505Holding
The appeal was partly allowed, and total compensation was enhanced from ₹5,25,049 to ₹6,87,049, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit.
pp. 5–6The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, less any amount already deposited, within four weeks; the claimant could withdraw it on application before the Tribunal.
pp. 5–6The order was corrected to include “No costs”.
pp. 8–9Original Court PDF
B. RAMANUJAMvsVIJAYA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
