2026:MHC:618C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 21 / 01 / 2026

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 17 / 02 / 2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 AND 90 OF 2026

AND

C.M.P. NO.31978 OF 2025 IN C.M.A. NO.3839 OF 2025

C.M.A. NO.3839 OF 2025

The Manager

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

Sree Lakshmi Complex, 1

st

Floor,

Omalur Main Road, Bharathi Street,

Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 004. ... Appellant /

2

nd

Respondent

Versus

1.Ramamoorthy

Residing at No.31, S.Kurapatty Village,

Sandhanapalli Post, Denkaikottai Taluk,

Krishnagiri District – 635 107. ...1

st

Respondent /

Petitioner

2.K.Sakthivel

Residing at No.346, Mariyamman Kovil Street,

Periyakulam, Melpadur, Chengam,

Tiruvannamalai District – 606 702. ...2

nd

Respondent /

1

st

Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Order dated August 16,

Page No.1 of 24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

2024 passed in M.C.O.P. No.268 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri, by allowing this

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan

For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj

For Respondent-2 : R2 was set ex parte before

Tribunal. Hence notice to R2

is dispensed with by this Judgment

C.M.A. NO.90 OF 2026

Ramamoorthy

No.31, S.Kurapatty Village,

Sandhanapalli Post, Denkaikottai Taluk,

Krishnagiri District – 635 107. ...Appellant /

Petitioner

Versus

1.K.Sakthivel

Residing at No.346, Mariyamman Kovil Street,

Periyakulam, Melpadur, Chengam,

Tiruvannamalai District – 606 702. ...1

st

Respondent /

1

st

Respondent

2.The Manager

Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited

Sree Lakshmi Complex, 1

st

Floor,

Omalur Main Road, Bharathi Street,

Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 004. ... 2

nd

Respondent /

2

nd

Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to enhance the compensation amount

awarded in the Fair Order dated August 16, 2024 passed in M.C.O.P.

Page No.2 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

No.268 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special

Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri, by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal.

For Appellant :Mr.S.P.Yuaraj

For Respondent-1 : R1 was set ex parte before Tribunal.

Hence notice to R1 is dispensed

with by this Judgment

For Respondent-2 :Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan

* * *

COMMON JUDGMENT

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated August 16, 2024 passed by

'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Court,

Krishnagiri' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.268 of 2023, the second

respondent therein, namely The Manager, Reliance General Insurance

Company Limited, has preferred C.M.A. No.3839 of 2025 seeking to set

aside the Award, while the petitioner therein, namely Ramamoorthy, has

preferred C.M.A. No.90 of 2026 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be

denoted as per their array in the Claim Petition.

Page No.3 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

PETITIONER'S CASE

3. On September 11, 2022, the petitioner was riding his motorcycle

viz., Yamaha YBR bearing Registration No.TN-29-BB-4075. He was

proceeding from Thippachandiram to Rathinagiri Road, near the Diversion

Road adjoining PAJAKA Milk Dairy. At that time, the first respondent's

Pickup vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-25-BR-4989, driven by its

driver from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a high

speed, lost control and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle.

3.1. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.

Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was admitted and treated at

the Government Hospital, Denkanikottai and thereafter at SPARSH

Hospital, Bangalore. Even as on the date of petition, the petitioner was

continuing his medical treatment. At the time of the accident, the petitioner

was aged about 24 years and was working as a Catering Master, earning a

sum of Rs.30,000/- per month.

3.2. Pursuant to the accident, a First Information Report (F.I.R.) in

Crime No.226 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 279

and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the file of Denkanikottai Police

Page No.4 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

Station, Krishnagiri District against the driver of first respondent's Pickup

vehicle.

3.3. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred solely due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Pickup vehicle.

Hence, the respondents, being owner and insurer of the offending Pickup

vehicle respectively, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the

petitioner for the injuries sustained by him. Accordingly, the petitioner has

filed the present claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-

(Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs only).

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE:

4. Despite notice to the first respondent, he did not choose to contest

the Claim Petition and hence he was called absent and set ex-parte by the

Tribunal.

SECOND RESPONDENT’S CASE:

5. The second respondent filed a counter statement contending that

the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the

petitioner himself. According to the second respondent, the petitioner was

riding his motorcycle without holding a valid driving licence and without

Page No.5 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

wearing a helmet. It is further contended that the petitioner rode the

motorcycle at a high speed in a junction road, lost control of the vehicle,

and dashed against the alleged offending vehicle belonging to the first

respondent, thereby inviting the accident. The second respondent further

denied the other petition averments and contended that the petitioner is put

to strict proof of the same. On these grounds, the second respondent /

insurance company sought for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. At trial, on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner examined

himself as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.12 were marked. On the side of the

respondents, no witness was examined, but Motor Vehicle Inspection

Report [M.V.I. Report] of the two wheeler the petitioner was riding, was

marked as Ex-R.1. The Report issued by the Medical Board was marked as

Ex-C.1.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Pickup

vehicle, belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second

Page No.6 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

respondent / insurance company at the material point of time. Accordingly,

the Tribunal held that the second respondent / insurance company alone is

liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and awarded a sum of

Rs.25,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) as

compensation to the petitioner, as detailed in the tabulation hereunder:

S.No. Head Amount

1Future loss of earning capacityRs.12,70,000/-

2Medical expenses Rs.9,01,300/-

3Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-

4Transportation expenses Rs.72,000/-

5Additional nourishment Rs.15,000/-

6Damages to the cloths Rs.1,700/-

7Attender charges Rs.10,000/-

8Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-

9Future medical expenses Rs.50,000/-

Total compensation Rs.25,20,000/-

8. Dissatisfied with the Award, the second respondent / insurance

company has preferred C.M.A. No.3839 of 2025 seeking to set aside the

same. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the petitioner has preferred

C.M.A. No.90 of 2026.

Page No.7 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

ARGUMENTS

9. Mr.S.P.Yuaraj, learned Counsel for the appellant in C.M.A. No.90

of 2026 / first respondent in C.M.A. No.3839 of 2025 / petitioner

submitted that the petitioner being a Catering Master, aged 24 years at the

time of accident, was unable to perform his job as well as his day-to-day

activities because of the accident. The petitioner was admitted in the

Hospital multiple times as an in-patient. The petitioner underwent multiple

surgeries. The petitioner sustained crush injury with absent distal

vascularity - right lower limb, near total amputation of right middle finger

and ring finger with fracture distal phalanx, right distal femur communited

fracture, right proximal tibia fracture with open wound type III C, post

traumatic raw right lower limb, right distal femur comminuted displaced

fracture, right proximal tibia comminuted fracture, along with several other

grievous injuries all over the body.

9.1. It was further contended that the Medical Board assessed the

disability of the petitioner at 60% permanent partial disability and issued

its report dated April 5, 2024, marked as Ex-C.1. The fact that the accident

occurred in the year 2022, and that the petitioner continues to suffer from

60% functional disability even in 2024, clearly and unequivocally

Page No.8 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

demonstrates the grievous nature of the injuries sustained and the

permanent character of the disability.

9.2. It was further contended that the Tribunal failed to adequately

consider the pain and suffering as well as the mental trauma underwent by

the petitioner at the young age of 23 years (at the time of the accident), and

the continuing nature of such suffering. The petitioner continues to

experience persistent pain owing to the grievous injuries sustained.

Accordingly, the learned Counsel prayed to allow the appeal in C.M.A.

No.90 of 2026, dismiss that in C.M.A. No.3839 of 2025 and enhance the

Award amount, taking into consideration all the relevant and attendant

factors.

10. On the other hand, Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan, learned Counsel

appearing for the appellant in C.M.A. No.3839 of 2025 / second

respondent in C.M.A. No.90 of 2026 / second respondent in Claim Petition

/ insurance company, contended that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is excessive and arbitrary. It was submitted that there was no

negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent's Pickup vehicle.

The initial burden of proof lies upon the petitioner to establish the alleged

negligence of the first respondent’s driver; however, the petitioner has

Page No.9 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

failed to discharge the said burden. It was further contended that the

petitioner did not examine any independent ocular witness to the

occurrence. In the absence of such proof, the Tribunal was not justified in

attributing negligence on the first respondent's driver. The learned Counsel

also assailed the Tribunal’s approach in fixing the notional income at

Rs.12,000/- per month and in adding 40% towards future prospects, as

baseless. Accordingly, the learned Counsel prayed to allow C.M.A.

No.3839 of 2025 and dismiss C.M.A. No.90 of 2026 and set aside the

Award passed by the Tribunal.

DISCUSSION

11. This Court has heard the submissions made on either side and

perused the materials available on record. Respondent No.1-K.Sakthivel

was set ex parte before Tribunal. Considering the facts and circumstances

of the case, this Court is of the view that notice to Respondent No.1 is not

necessary. Therefore, notice to Respondent No.1 is dispensed with by this

Court.

12. This Court has perused Ex-P.1 - F.I.R. marked on behalf of the

petitioner. It was registered against the driver of the first respondent's

Pickup vehicle. The petitioner / injured entered the witness box as P.W.1

Page No.10 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

and deposed in line with the manner of accident as stated in the Claim

Petition. He deposed that the first respondent's Pickup van which was

approaching from the opposite direction dashed against his motorcycle and

caused the accident. He being the victim is a competent person to depose

about the manner of accident. His evidence coupled with Ex-P.1 - F.I.R.,

prima facie proves his case qua manner of accident.

13. Though the second respondent contended that the accident

occurred when the petitioner attempted to negligently cross the road in his

motorcycle, the said contention remained unsubstantiated as no evidence

was let in to support the same. No rough sketch was marked on the side of

second respondent. Neither the driver of first respondent's Pickup vehicle

nor any ocular witness was examined on the part of the second respondent.

14. Yet another contention of the second respondent is that the

petitioner did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident.

The second respondent would go on to contend that the petitioner, holding

no valid driving licence, contributed to the accident. To support the same,

Ex-R.1 - M.V.I. Report of petitioner's motorcycle has been marked. From

Ex-R.1, it could be seen that the driving licence of the petitioner was not

produced before the vehicle inspector / author of Ex-R.1, and the same is

Page No.11 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

not conclusive proof that the petitioner did not have a valid licence. In the

first place, though the petitioner did not produce his driving licence before

the vehicle inspector or the Court, the burden to prove that the petitioner

did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident is upon the

second respondent who set up the said defence. The second respondent has

not let in any evidence to substantiate its defence. The second respondent

could have very well examined the Regional Transport Officer [RTO] or

anyone from the office of RTO to prove its defence, but it has failed to do

so. Secondly, even while operating under the assumption that the second

respondent has proved its defence that the petitioner did not have a valid

driving licence at the time of accident, the same does not, as such, mean he

contributed to the accident. The second respondent must establish that the

petitioner was riding rashly and negligently in order to invoke the principle

of contributory negligence. At this point, this Court would like to refer to

the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana -vs-

Surinder Singh, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 436, which was subsequently

followed in Dinesh Kumar -vs- National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in

(2018) 1 SCC 750. Relevant extract of Sudhir Kumar Rana's Case reads

thus:

"9.If a person drives a vehicle without a licence,

he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our

Page No.12 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as

regards the accident. It has been held by the courts

below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was

driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say

that the appellant was not possessing any licence but

no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was

driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he

was not driving rashly and negligently which

contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how,

only because he was not having a licence, he would be

held to be guilty of contributory negligence.

10. The matter might have been different if by

reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident

had taken place."

15. Thus, the legal position is clear that non-holding of a valid

driving licence is itself cannot be ground for mulcting the petitioner for

contributory negligence. In view of the legal position and also in view of

the fact that the second respondent failed to discharge its burden to prove

its defence, the contention of second respondent qua the petitioner lacking

a valid driving licence at the material point of time, does not hold up under

scrutiny.

Page No.13 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

16. As discussed above, the uncontroverted evidence of P.W.1 and

Ex-P.1 - F.I.R. proves that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligence on the part of the driver of first respondent's Pickup van. The

second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle under Ex-P.2 -

Insurance Policy which is valid from November 10, 2021 to November 9,

2022; Ex-P.2 was valid and in force on the date of accident, being

September 11, 2022. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and

severally liable to compensate the petitioner, as rightly held by the

Tribunal.

17. As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal found that the

petitioner was engaged in catering work and there is no serious dispute

with respect to the said finding before this Court. Upon perusal of the

Award and the evidence available on record, this Court finds that the

Tribunal was not justified in fixing the functional disability at 35%, when

the Medical Board duly constituted has assessed the petitioner's disability

as 60% partial permanent disability vide the Disability Certificate in Ex-

C.1. For ease of reference, the contents of the Disability Certificate issued

by the Medical Board are extracted below:

Page No.14 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

"DISABILITY CERTIFICATE

14.Nature of functional

disability, if applicable

(bray;ghl;L ,ayhikapd;

jd;ik/ bghUe;jpdhy;

kl;Lk;)

a. Specify the functional

disability

(bray;ghl;L ,ayhikiaf;

Fwpg;gplt[k;)

Post traumatic

stiffness (R) knee

ankle with

Arthiritis /

deformity (R) leg

b. Specify the cause of

functional disability

(bray;ghl;L ,ayhikf;fh

d fhuzj;ijf;

Fwpg;gplt[k;)

RTA

c. Percentage of functional

disability

(bray;ghl;L ,ayhik

rjtPjk;)

60% (Sixty

Percentage)

(Partial Permanent)

i. does disability affect day to

day life?

(,ayhik md;whl

thH;f;ifia ghjpf;fpwjh?)

Yes

ii. does disability affect

earning capacity with regard

to the occupation ?

(,ayhik bjhHpiyg;

bghWj;jtiuapy;

rk;ghjpf;Fk; jpwid

ghjpf;fpwjh?)

Yes

Page No.15 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

iii. Whether there is scope

for the disability being

reduced?

(,ayhik

Fiwf;fg;gLtjw;fhd

tha;g;g[ cs;sjh?)"

Nil

18. It could be seen from Ex-C.1 that the petitioner has been

suffering from reduced movements, arthritis in right ankle and stiffness in

right knee. The accident occurred on September 11, 2022 and Ex-C.1 -

Disability Certificate is dated April 5, 2024. The fact that the petitioner

was suffering from 60% partial permanent disability even after about two

years from accident, shows the grievous nature of injuries. Further, being a

Catering Master could be a physically demanding and time sensitive job. It

involves standing for long hours, lifting and mobilising moderate to heavy

loads and also constant supervision across the food preparation area and in

some cases, even the serving area. To be noted, the petitioner is not

involved in a large scale organised catering, where there would be more

scope for delegation and consequently, reduced physical strain for him.

Being a small scale caterer, his direct physical involvement is necessary.

Considering the avocation of the petitioner as a Catering Master and in

view of the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, which would

Page No.16 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

substantially hinder his working efficiency and affect his earning capacity

in his chosen profession, this Court assesses the petitioner's disability at

60% functional disability. The Tribunal is not justifiable in considering his

functional disability at 35%.

19. As regards the income of the petitioner, as no sufficient evidence

was adduced on the petitioner's side to substantiate his alleged income of

Rs.30,000/-, the Tribunal went on to fix his monthly income at Rs.12,000/-

[annual income at Rs.1,44,000/-] notionally, by taking into consideration

cost inflation index and money value. Bearing in mind the age and

avocation of the petitioner, as well as the then prevailing price index, this

Court is of the view that the petitioner would have earned not less than

Rs.12,000/- to maintain himself and support his family members. In the

absence of direct evidence, the Tribunal is right in fixing his monthly

income notionally at Rs.12,000/-.

20. Based on Ex-P.9 - Aadhar Card of petitioner, the Tribunal found

that the petitioner was born on July 10, 1999 and held that he was aged 23

years at the time of accident. The Tribunal rightly applied 40% towards

future prospects and adopted the multiplier of 18, which are in tune with

Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport

Page No.17 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance

Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

However, as stated supra, the Tribunal ought to have considered the

petitioner's functional disability at 60% bearing in mind the nature of his

avocation as well as Ex-C.1. When functional disability is considered at

60%, compensation towards 'future loss of earning capacity' comes to

Rs.21,77,280/-.

21. That apart, as per the discharge summaries and medical records

in Ex-P.3 to Ex-P.7, it could be seen that the petitioner obtained treatment

as an in-patient in two different hospitals in multiple stints, for about 20

days in total, within a span of one year from the date of accident. Further, it

could be seen that he suffered severe and grievous injuries in his right leg

and that his right middle finger suffered injuries to the extent of near

amputation. Keeping in mind these facts, this Court is of the view that the

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings is justifiable.

22. The compensation awarded under the head of medical expenses

is based on the Medical Bills found in Ex-P.12. Similarly, transportation

expenses awarded is also based on the transportation bills in Ex-P.11.

Further, the Tribunal, having considered the petitioner’s grievous injuries,

Page No.18 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

post-traumatic stiffness, the Medical Board’s observation in Ex-C.1

regarding the removal of medical implants and the petitioner’s arthritis,

awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses, and this

Court finds no reason to interfere with the same.

23. Further, Ex-C.1 - Disability Certificate shows that there is no

scope for the petitioner's disability being reduced. As stated above, the

petitioner was facing difficulty in movements at time of medical

examination which was about two years after the accident. The said fact

shows that the petitioner suffers from loss of certain amenities. Further, in

view of the grievous injuries sustained and its lasting effects on the

petitioner's mobility, his marital prospects is also slightly affected. Hence,

this Court is of the view that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded

under the head of loss of amenities is reasonable. The compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads namely extra nourishment,

damages to clothes and attender charges, also are also reasonable.

Page No.19 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

CONCLUSION

24. In view of the foregoing narrative, the petitioner is entitled to

compensation as tabulated below :

S.

No.

Head

Amount

awarded by

the Tribunal

Amount

re-quantified

by this Court

Status

1Future loss of earning

capacity

[Rs.12,000/-(NI)X 40%

(FP) = Rs.16,800/-;

Rs.16,800 X 60/100 X 18

(M) X 12(m)

Rs.12,70,000/-Rs.21,77,280/-Enhanced

2Medical expenses Rs.9,01,300/-Rs.9,01,300/-Confirmed

3Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-Rs.1,00,000/-Confirmed

4Transportation expensesRs.72,000/-Rs.72,000/-Confirmed

5Additional nourishmentRs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-Confirmed

6Damages to the clothes Rs.1,700/-Rs.1,700/-Confirmed

7Attender charges Rs.10,000/-Rs.10,000/-Confirmed

8Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-Rs.1,00,000/-Confirmed

9Future medical expensesRs.50,000/-Rs.50,000/-Confirmed

Total compensation Rs.25,20,000/-Rs.34,27,280/-Enhanced

Note:1) NI = Notional Income

2) FP = Future Prospects

3) M = Multiplier

4) m = Months

Page No.20 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

25. Therefore, the appellant in C.M.A. No.3839 of 2025 / second

respondent in C.M.A. No.90 of 2026 / insurance company is directed to

deposit the modified award amount of Rs.34,27,280/- [Rupees Thirty

Four Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty only]

along 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 M.C.O.P. No.268 of 2023 on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate

Court, Krishnagiri, less the amount if any already deposited, within a

period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.

In all other aspects, the Award of the Tribunal shall hold good.

26. Resultantly,

(i)C.M.A.No.3839 of 2025 filed by the Insurance Company is

dismissed.

(ii)C.M.A.No.90 of 2026 filed by the petitioner / claimant is

allowed in part with proportionate costs throughout, as detailed

above.

(iii)Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall

be no order as to costs in C.M.A. No.3839 of 2025.

Page No.21 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

(iv)Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

[N.S.K., J.] [R.S.V., J.]

17 / 02 / 2026

Index : Yes / No

Neutral Citation: Yes / No

Speaking Order : Yes / No

TK

Page No.22 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

To

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /

Special Subordinate Court,

Krishnagiri

Page No.23 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 & 90 OF 2026

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

AND

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

TK

PRE-DELIVERY COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN

C.M.A. NOS.3839 OF 2025 AND 90 OF 2026

17 / 02 / 2026

Page No.24 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis