Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2010

M.K. GOPINATHAN … APPELLANT

VERSUS

J. KRISHNA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5 th March, 2009  

passed by the High Court of Kerala in Motor Accident Claims Appeal  

No. 1441 of 2004.

2. The case of the appellant is that he was employed in Malaysia  

as a Tool & Die Engineer. He had come to his native town in Kerala to  

attend  his  sister’s  wedding.  On  15.5.1996,  when  the  appellant  was  

traveling in a jeep, a bus coming from the opposite direction rammed into  

the  jeep  resulting  in  five  deaths  and  the  appellant  suffered  severe  

injuries, namely a crush injury on his upper right arm which had to be -

1

Page 2

amputated. The appellant was treated as an in-patient in the hospital for  

42 days and during which time four surgeries were conducted on him.  

3. The appellant filed O.P. (MV) No. 304 of 1997 before the Motor  

Accident  Claims  Tribunal  claiming  Rs.75,00,000/-  as  compensation.  

Before the Tribunal,  the appellant  examined himself  as P.W.14.   The  

Tribunal did not believe the version of the appellant that he had been  

employed permanently as a Tool and Die Engineer in Malaysia and was  

drawing Rs.50,000/- per month.  However, the Tribunal noticed that the  

appellant is permanently disabled to an extent of 70% due to the injuries  

sustained  by  him in  the  accident.   In  the  absence  of  any  authentic,  

reliable  and acceptable  proof  produced by the appellant  to  show his  

monthly income, the Tribunal considering the fact that the appellant is a  

qualified Engineer, and having regard to the Schedule to the Workmen’s  

Compensation Act, fixed his monthly income notionally at Rs.3,000/- and  

considering his  age at  the time of  accident,  which is  34,  applied the  

multiplier  17.   The  Tribunal,  passed  award  on  28.02.2004,  awarding  

compensation to  the appellant  to  a  tune of  Rs.5,15,700/-  in  all,  with  

interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition and at 6% p.a.  

from 31.12.2001.   

4. The appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the  

Tribunal, filed M.A.C.A. No. 1441 of 2004 before the High Court of -

2

Page 3

Kerala.  The Division Bench of  the High Court,  reassessed the entire  

case and opined that the Tribunal ought to have reasonably assessed  

the  monthly  salary  which  the  appellant  was  getting  at  the  time  of  

accident.  However, taking into consideration, the totality of the facts and  

circumstances of the case, the High Court fixed the monthly income of  

the  appellant  at  Rs.5,000/-  p.m.,  instead  of  Rs.3,000/-  fixed  by  the  

Tribunal,  and  enhanced  the  compensation  from  Rs.5,15,700/-,  as  

awarded  by  the  Tribunal,  to  Rs.  8,43,500/-,  which  is  inclusive  of  

Rs.4,200/-  awarded  towards  extra  nourishment.   The  High  Court,  

enhanced the  interest  payable  on  the  compensation  to  the  appellant  

from 31.12.2001, from 6% p.a. to 7.5% p.a.   

5. Being dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, the appellant  

filed this appeal before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition.

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  contended  that  both  the  

Tribunal and the High Court  have erred in assessing the quantum of  

compensation payable to the appellant.  The compensation awarded is  

not in consonance with the income and status of the appellant. On the  

date  of  accident,  the  appellant  was  a  Tool  and  Die  Engineer  on  

permanent  rolls  of  a  company in  Malaysia  and was getting salary of  

Rs.50,000/- p.m., apart from other benefits. Being a well qualified and  

permanently employed person, the appellant apart from maintaining -

3

Page 4

himself  in  Malaysia,  was  supporting  his  family  at  Kerala  by  sending  

substantial amount to them.  He submitted that the High Court also failed  

to  take  into  account  the  actual  monthly  income  and  status  of  the  

appellant,  and  has  grossly  erred  in  meagrely  enhancing  the  monthly  

salary from Rs.3,000/- fixed by the Tribunal to Rs.5,000/- for the purpose  

of computing the compensation.  At the time of accident, the appellant  

was  only  34  years  old  and  in  view of  the  70% permanent  disability  

suffered during to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he had  

lost all the growth avenues. He, therefore, submitted that the appellant,  

having regard to his qualification, profession and the salary drawn by  

him, was entitled to be awarded more compensation.

7. On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents,  

submitted that the grounds raised in this appeal claiming enhancement  

of compensation are absolutely devoid of merit. The Division Bench of  

the High Court has adequately enhanced the amount of compensation  

by Rs. 3,27,800/-, which is just and reasonable.  Hence, it is submitted  

that the case of the appellant is without any substance and does not  

require interference from this Court.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the  

material on record.

-

4

Page 5

9. The  only  issue  that  arises  for  consideration  is  whether  the  

compensation payable to the appellant has to be computed based on  

the assertion made by him that at the time of accident, he was working  

as Tool and Die Engineer in a company in Malaysia and drawing        Rs.  

50,000/- p.m.?

10. The appellant, before the Tribunal to prove his monthly income  

as  Rs.50,000/-  and  in  support  of  his  claim for  compensation,  except  

examining himself as P.W.4, did not examine any person.  According to  

him,  he  was  working  as  a  Tool  and  Die  Engineer  in  a  company  in  

Malaysia and getting Rs.50,000/-  as monthly  salary.  He did not  even  

produce any authentic certificate to prove his income and qualification.  

He has produced only a xerox copy of a certificate issued by the Institute  

of Engineers India showing that he has passed Sections A & B of the  

Institution’s examination in Mechanical Engineering branch. Though the  

appellant failed to prove his income with documentary evidence, the fact  

that  he  was  holding  an  engineering  certificate  and  was  working  in  

Malaysia is not in dispute. In the circumstances, taking into consideration  

the undisputed fact of his qualification, and particularly his working in  

overseas Company, we feel just and reasonable to consider his monthly  

income as Rs. 8,000/-.

-

5

Page 6

11. Accordingly,  taking  the  monthly  salary  of  the  appellant  as  

Rs.8,000/-, the compensation payable to him has to be computed. Apart  

from  that,  we  enhance  the  amounts  payable  to  the  appellant  under  

different other heads in the manner following:  

1. Loss of earnings (Rs.8,000/- x 6) minus Rs.18,000/-

Rs. 30,000/- more

2. Loss of amenities (Rs.30,000/- minus Rs.10,000/-)

Rs. 20,000/- more

3. Compensation for reduction In earning capacity (Rs. 8,000/- x 12 x 17 x 70/100) Minus Rs. 4,28,400/- i.e. (Rs. 11,42,400  – Rs.4,28,400/-)

Rs. 7,14,000/- more

4. Extra nourishment Rs. 20,000/- 5. Bills for payment to doctors Rs.   6,000/-

Total Rs. 7,90,000/- more

12.  Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the  

appeal to the extent indicated above with interest @ 6% p.a. from the  

date of petition till  the date of deposit.  There shall  be no order as to  

costs.

…………………………………………CJI. (P. SATHASIVAM)

……………………………………………J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

……………………………………………J. (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI, APRIL 17, 2014  

6