1    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8278-8279 OF 2018         (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.1116-1117/2018)  

Shivaraj       .…Appellant(s)   

:Versus:    

Rajendra & Anr.      ….Respondent(s)      

 J U D G M E N T  

 A.M. Khanwilkar, J.    1. These appeals are directed against the common  

judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka  

at Bengaluru dated 13th August, 2015 in M.F.A. No.7662 of  

2013 (MV) and M.F.A. No.9995 of 2013 (MV) whereby the  

High Court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.2  

(insurer) and dismissed the appeal for enhancement of  

compensation preferred by the appellant (injured claimant).   

2. Briefly stated, on 23rd February, 2010 at about 8:30  

a.m., the appellant was travelling in a tractor bearing  

Registration No.KA-15-T-2011 as a Coolie, on Bangalore

2    

Road, Survey No.266, Bangalore. The driver of the tractor  

was driving at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner  

and dashed the tractor against a big mud stone, resulting in  

the tractor turning turtle and the appellant suffering  

grievous injuries. The appellant was immediately taken to  

North Side Hospital and Diagnostic Center, Bangalore,  

where he underwent medical treatment as an inpatient,  

from 23rd February, 2010 to 27th February, 2010. Later on,  

he was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital,  

Bangalore, as an inpatient from 27th February, 2010 to 7th  

May, 2010 and underwent 4 (four) different surgeries.  

According to the appellant, despite receiving best medical  

treatment, he suffered permanent physical disability to an  

extent of 59.4% both lower limbs, 18.9% towards Vertebra,  

Clavicle and Scapula and 80% towards urethral injury,  

which is about 67% to the whole body. The appellant was  

only 25 years of age at the time of the accident and was  

working as a coolie. On account of his permanent disability,  

the appellant has become incapable of working as a coolie  

and is thus denied of his income to the extent of Rs.6,000/-  

per month.

3    

3. Resultantly, a claim petition was filed by the appellant  

before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member, MACT,  

Bangalore, bearing M.V.C. No.3533/2010, under Section  

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation  

of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only) for the  

injuries sustained by him in the accident.   

   4. The appellant examined 4 witnesses in support of his  

claim and also produced Exhs. P1 to P24. The respondent  

examined RW1 Sagayaraj, Administrative Officer and  

produced Exhs. R1 and R2. After analysing the evidence  

produced by the parties, the tribunal proceeded to answer  

the three issues framed by it on the basis of the pleadings.   

   5. The tribunal held that the claimant was able to prove  

the facts that the accident occurred on 23rd February, 2010  

at 8:30 a.m. while he was going in the stated tractor, due to  

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The  

tribunal held that the appellant was travelling as a loader in  

the tractor and not as a gratuitous passenger. After

4    

adverting to the Insurance Policy, the tribunal noticed that  

the same covered risk of 1+4. The tribunal held that the  

respondent No.2 admitted issuance of the Insurance Policy  

to the offending vehicle and its validity as on the date of the  

accident. The tribunal then proceeded to quantify the  

compensation amount on the notional income of the  

appellant at Rs.150/- per day as a coolie and, keeping in  

mind the age of the appellant at the relevant time i.e. 25  

years, applied multiplier of 18. The tribunal adjudged the  

permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of 60% to  

the whole body and on that basis, computed the loss of  

future income of the appellant at Rs.5,83,000/-(Rupees Five  

Lakh Eighty Three Thousand Only). The tribunal arrived at  

the following calculation to be awarded as compensation to  

the appellant payable jointly by the owner of the vehicle and  

the insurer, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum  

from the date of petition till the date of realization. The  

computation of compensation amount towards different  

heads arrived at by the tribunal is as follows:  

5    

Compensation Heads Compensation  

amount  

1. Pain and agony Rs.   85,000/-  

2. Medical expenses Rs.1,42,324/-  

3. Future medical expenses Rs.   50,000/-  

4. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.   12,000/-  

5. Rest, Nourishment and attendant          

charges  

Rs.     5,000/-  

6. Loss of future income Rs.5,83,000/-  

7. Conveyance Rs.     5,000/-  

8. Loss of amenities & discomfort in life Rs.   20,000/-  

Total Rs.9,02,324/-  

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, respondent No.2  

(insurer) preferred an appeal being M.F.A. No.7662 of 2013  

(MV) and the appellant preferred a separate appeal being  

M.F.A. No.9995 of 2013 (MV) for enhancement of the  

compensation amount. The High Court disposed of both  

these appeals by the impugned common judgment and  

order. The High Court broadly agreed with all other findings  

given by the tribunal but held that going by the stand taken  

by the appellant throughout the proceeding and the  

contemporaneous documents Exhs. P2 to P5, nowhere was  

it mentioned that the appellant was travelling in a trailer  

attached to the tractor. The evidence, however, is  

unambiguous that the appellant travelled in the tractor  

which was insured only for agriculture purposes and not for  

carrying goods. No additional insurance was taken in

6    

respect of the trailer rather presence of trailer is not shown  

or demonstrated in any of the documents and there was no  

evidence to demonstrate that the tractor was attached to a  

trailer. The tractor could accommodate only one person  

namely the driver of the tractor and none else.    

 7. On that finding, the High Court concluded that the  

appellant travelled in the tractor in breach of policy terms  

and conditions and therefore, the Insurance Company  

cannot be made liable to compensate the owner or the  

claimant. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the  

respondent No.2 was allowed by the High Court and the  

insurer came to be absolved from the liability to pay  

compensation. While dealing with the appeal for  

enhancement of the compensation amount filed by the  

appellant, the High Court noted that the amount arrived at  

by the tribunal was just and proper and reckoned all the  

mandatory heads of compensation. As a result, it concluded  

that the appellant was not entitled for enhanced  

compensation.   

7    

8. The appellant has assailed the said common judgment  

and order of the High Court by these appeals. We have  

heard Ms. Kanika for the appellant and Ms. Rekha Chandra  

Sekhar for the respondent No.2 (insurer). Both the courts  

have accepted the case of the appellant that the motor  

accident occurred on 23rd February, 2010 at about 8:30  

a.m. in which the appellant suffered grievous injuries due to  

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor.  

Further, both courts have determined permanent disability  

of 60% to the whole body suffered by the appellant in the  

accident.   

9. The High Court, however, found in favour of  

respondent No.2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the  

tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy  

condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture  

purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record  

unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer  

insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it  

would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a  

passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only  

one person namely the driver. As a result, the Insurance

8    

Company (respondent No.2) was not liable for the loss or  

injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner  

of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court,  

in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of  

the present case.   

10. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present  

case the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance  

Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant  

(appellant) with liberty to recover the same from the tractor  

owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by  

this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarna  

Singh & Ors.1, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.  

Ltd.2, Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. &  

Ors.3 and including Manuara Khatun and Others Vs.  

Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others.4  In other words, the  

High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred  

by the respondent No.2. The appellant may, therefore,  

succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No.2  

Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the                                                              1 (2004) 3 SCC 297  2 (2018) 5 SCC 656  3 2018 (9) SCALE 310  4 (2017) 4 SCC 796

9    

appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor  

owner (respondent No.1).  

11. Reverting to the issue regarding the determination of  

compensation amount by the tribunal and as affirmed by  

the High Court, we find that the tribunal had taken into  

account all the relevant aspects and provided for just and  

proper compensation amount for different heads as are  

permissible. The High Court, therefore, was justified in not  

disturbing the said conclusion of the tribunal. We affirm the  

view so taken by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal  

preferred by the appellant for enhancement of compensation  

amount does not warrant interference.   

12. We may place on record that the appellant did make  

an unsuccessful attempt to persuade us to take a view that  

the permanent disability should be reckoned as 67% to the  

whole body. However, after going through the evidence of  

the doctor who had treated the appellant and the medical  

records, we find that the assessment made by the tribunal  

about the extent of permanent disability at 60% to the  

whole body seems to be a possible view. We are not inclined

10    

to disturb the said finding and also because it has been  

justly affirmed by the High Court, being concurrent finding  

of fact. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant for  

enhancement of compensation amount does not merit  

interference.   

13. In view of the above, the appeals are partly allowed to  

the extent of directing the respondent No.2 (Oriental  

Insurance Company Ltd.) to pay the compensation amount  

determined by the tribunal and affirmed by the High Court  

to the appellant in the first place and with liberty to recover  

the same from the owner of the offending tractor  

(respondent No.1) in accordance with law.  

 14. The appeals are disposed of in the aforementioned  

terms with no order as to costs.   

 ……………………………...CJI.  

          (Dipak Misra)  

…..…….…………………..….J.                (A.M. Khanwilkar)   

New Delhi;  September 05, 2018.