Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 03-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Appellant: R. Balaji, S/o P. Ramadoss Rao, Old No.49, New No.20, Kuppamuthu Street, Ellis Road, Triplicane, Chennai‑5.
  • Respondents: 1) Rahamathullah, No.36, Irusappa Street, K.Naggar Meeran, Royapettah, Chennai‑14; 2) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.38, Anna Salai, Chennai‑2.
  • Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 26‑09‑2023 (M.A.C.T. O.P. No.3190 of 2003) of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
  • Accident occurred on 11‑01‑2003: appellant was pillion rider on a two‑wheeler owned by the first respondent; an unidentifiable bus collided with the two‑wheeler at about 12:30 hrs near P. Orr & Sons, causing the appellant to fall.
  • Injuries sustained: (i) Sub‑trochanteric fracture of right hip; (ii) Peri‑prosthetic fracture of femur; (iii) Open reduction and DCS plate fixation on 13‑04‑2003; (iv) DCS implant removal from right leg.
  • Hospitalisation from 11‑01‑2003 to 17‑01‑2003; FIR registered as Crime No.78 of 2003 at D6, Anna Square Traffic Investigation Police Station, Chennai.
  • Claim petition originally filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, later amended to Section 163A.
  • Tribunal dismissed claim on 28‑11‑2014; appellant filed C.M.A. No.1719 of 2016 before this Court; this Court set aside the 28‑11‑2014 order on 30‑06‑2021 and directed disposal within four months under Section 163A.
  • On remand, Tribunal again dismissed claim on 26‑09‑2023, holding (a) injuries not covered by Schedule‑1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (i.e., not “permanent disablement”), and (b) appellant’s annual income exceeded Rs 40,000 (appellant claimed Rs 10,000 per month = Rs 1,20,000 per annum).
  • Bench: Hon’ble Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.

Final Outcome

  • The Court examined precedents including Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Others v United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2004 SC 2107), Puttamma v K.L. Narayana Reddy (CDJ 2013 SC 1118), and Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v S. Jona Lourdhu Rani (CDJ 2026 MHC 1440).
  • It held that the injuries do not satisfy the definition of “permanent disablement” under Schedule‑1 of the Employees' Compensation Act, rendering the claim unsustainable.
  • The statutory income ceiling of Rs 40,000 per annum is mandatory; the appellant’s actual income of Rs 1,20,000 per annum exceeds this limit.
  • The Division Bench decision in S. Jona Lourdhu Rani was deemed per incuriam for disregarding the specific provision of the Act.
  • Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s order dated 26‑09‑2023.
  • The civil miscellaneous appeal (No.930 of 2024) is dismissed; the Tribunal’s order is sustained; no costs awarded.

Topics: Motor Accident Compensation, Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, Insurance Claim