In this appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, this Court dismissed the claimant's appeal. Upholding the Tribunal's 50:50 negligence apportionment and compensation quantum, the Court found the award justified and the imputed income of Rs.10,000/- appropriate.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
| Reserved on | 16.02.2026 |
|---|---|
| Pronounced on: | .04.2026 |
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN
THILAKAVADI
C.M.A.No.339 of 2026
Devi, W/o. Nataraj, aged about 50 years, residing at 22/52, Thannir Thotti Veethi, Palladam Tk, Samalapuram, Tiruppur District.
…Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Angeripalayam Road, (Now at Palladam Road), Tiruppur District.
…Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1992 of 2018 dated 03.10.2024 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court to deal with MCOP Cases, Tiruppur, seeking enhancement of compensation.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj For Respondent : Mr.P.Gurunathan, Additional
1
Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the claimant Devi, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.1992 of 2018 dated 03.10.2024 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court to deal with MCOP Cases, Tiruppur.
other serious injuries. She underwent multiple surgeries. As per the medical board report (Ex.C1), she has sustained 35% permanent disability. She is unable to walk as before and unable to lift her hand as before. Her husband Nataraj succumbed to the injuries. Devi filed M.C.O.P.No.1992 of 2018 seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3
ratio.
could not attend to her milk business and agricultural work. He further submitted that the awards under attending charges, transport, extra nourishment, loss of amenities and pain and suffering are all grossly inadequate having regard to the grievous and permanent nature of her injuries, and that future medical
4
expenses have not been awarded at all. He prayed for enhancement of compensation to Rs.20,00,000/- as claimed.
to be fixed on the respondent’s driver. As noted above, while the FIR and Final Report are against the respondent’s driver, those documents do not conclusively establish that the deceased Nataraj bore no responsibility. The CCTV footage (Ex.X3) and rough sketch (Ex.R1) clearly show that the deceased was riding on the wrong side of the road near the toll gate, which was a direct contributing factor to the accident. The Tribunal, on a careful analysis of all the evidence, rightly concluded that while the respondent’s driver also contributed by failing to take evasive action despite noticing the two-wheeler from a distance, the deceased was equally at fault. The 50:50 apportionment of negligence is a well-
5
reasoned finding based on evidence and does not warrant interference.
6
documentary evidence to substantiate her claimed income of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.10,000/- taking note of the prevailing economic conditions and her occupation as an agriculturist and milk business operator. Though the claimant contends that no evidence was led and the fixing was without basis, the Tribunal has taken a reasonable and moderate figure. This Court finds the fixation of Rs.10,000/- per month to be appropriate and does not warrant enhancement.
.04.2026
vsn
Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order
7
To
8
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
vsn
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
C.M.A.No.339 of 2026
.04.2026
9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the MACT was adequate and whether the 50:50 apportionment of negligence was correct.
Whether the learned Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/-.
Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Devi, W/o. Nataraj
The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Angeripalayam Road
K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
