CMA/1782/2023 of MADHAVAN Vs P. ANBARASU on 15 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) Seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, in MCOP.NO.3936 of 2017, the claimant is before this Court.

2. The facts are briefly set out herein below and the parties are referred to as the claimant and respondents.

3. It is the case of the claimant that on 11.06.2017 at about 02.00 PM, when he was travelling as a passenger in the Government bus bearing registration No. TN 21 N 1769 on the Srikalahasthi to Tirupathy main road and as the bus came close to Srikalahasthi Railway Station, a lorry bearing registration No.TN 34 W 7299, belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent came at a dangerous speed and dashed against the

CMA No. 1782 of 2023

Government bus on its left rear portion. As a result of this impact, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries.

4. As the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver the claimant had sought compensation of a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-. The petitioner submits that he was working as an Electric ARC Welder with M/s. Strong Steel Left at Sharjah, earning a monthly salary of Rs.50,000/-.

5. The 1st respondent, owner of the lorry though served had not entered appearance either in person or through counsel and remained ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent insurance company had filed their counter inter alia denying the manner in which the accident had taken place and they had also submitted that the petitioner while travelling had not taken proper care which has resulted in the injury. That apart, the claim petition is bad for non joinder as the owner of bus had not been arrayed as a party.

CMA No. 1782 of 2023

7. The 2nd respondent had taken a stand that the Government bus had also contributed to the accident. Therefore, there must be an apportionment of liability. They had also contended that the compensation claimed was very high and not commensurate to the injuries.

8. Before the Tribunal, the claimant had examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. On the side of the 2nd respondent there was no oral or documentary evidence.

9. The Tribunal had held that the accident had occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the lorry and had awarded a compensation of Rs.4,93,600/-. The Tribunal had while fixing quantum taken note of the disability certificate, Ex.C.1 issued to the petitioner by the Regional Medical Board, Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai, where the disability was fixed at 50%. Since the claimant had not lost his earning capacity, the Tribunal did not adopt multiplier method but had adopted percentage method by fixing a sum of Rs.5000/-, per percentage as compensation.

CMA No. 1782 of 2023

10. As regards the salary pleaded by the claimant, the Tribunal observed that the claimant has not produced any document to prove the salary earned by him. The claimant had only produced employer’s ID card, the Employment Visa and front page of the bank passbook. Therefore, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,93,600/-.

11. Challenging the same on the ground that the award was less, the claimant has filed this appeal.

12. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/-, as salary, whereas, the tribunal has only taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. Further, the accident had taken place in the year 2017, whereas, the Tribunal has adopted only a sum of Rs.5000/- per percentage to calculate the disability. Therefore, he would seek an enhancement.

13. Per contra, Mr. C.Paranthaman, appearing on behalf of the insurance company, submits that the claimant has not provided any proof of the employment and that the notional amount arrived at was correct. He

CMA No. 1782 of 2023

would further submit that the amount of compensation awarded is fair and just.

14. Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the records.

15. Admittedly, the claimant had suffered disability on account of the accident which had taken place in the year 2017. The sum of Rs.5000/- adopted for percentage method is slightly low and is enhanced to a sum of Rs.7000/-. Therefore, under the head of 50% disability the amount is enhanced from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/- (50% X 7000 = Rs.3,50,000/-). The claimant has been an inpatient for more than a month and had undergone two surgeries as evident from Ex.P.2, discharge summary issued by the Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai. Therefore, the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head of pain and sufferings is on the lower range and the same has been enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In all other respects, the award requires no consideration.

16. Consequently, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The award is enhanced to a sum of Rs.6,43,600/-. The 2nd respondent shall

CMA No. 1782 of 2023

deposit the award amount or where the amount is already deposited, the enhanced amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, now awarded with interest at 7.5 % per annum to the credit of MCOP.No.3936 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 15-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAN

CMA No. 1782 of 2023

To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Judge Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

CMA No. 1782 of 2023

P.T.ASHA, J. AND E.MANOHARAN, J. KAN CMA No. 1782 of 2023 15-09-2026