NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3784  OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)                  No.5454/2010)

Sri Kumaresh        ...Appellant(s)

- Versus -

The Divl. Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.    ...Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T 1

GANGULY, J.

1.Leave granted.

1.On 1.11.2006, at about 7.15 p.m., the appellant  

was proceeding on a motorcycle (No. KA-04-X-4576)  

as a pillion rider on T.C. Palya Miand Road, near  

Raghawendranagar, when a lorry (No. KA-22-A-6772)  

came  from  behind  at  a  high  speed  and  dashed  

against  the  motorcycle.  The  left  wheel  of  the  

lorry ran over the right leg of the appellant,  

due to which he sustained grievous injuries. The  

2

right leg of the appellant had to be amputated as  

a result of the accident.

1.The  appellant  filed  a  claim  petition  under  

section  166  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988  

claiming Rs.15 lacs as compensation. At the time  

of the accident, the appellant was aged 20 years  

and claimed to be earning Rs.6000/- per month as  

salary as a building centering worker.

1.The  Motor  Accident  Claims  Tribunal  (MACT)  held  

that in motor accidents cases, strict proof of  

rash and negligence need not be established as  

was required in criminal cases, and accordingly  3

concluded  that  it  was  clearly  established  that  

the appellant sustained injuries as a result of  

the  accident.  The  appellant  had  sustained  

fracture to both bones of lower 1/3 tibia and  

fibula,  and  the  right  leg  below  knee  was  

amputated. Thus, the MACT awarded Rs.50,000/- for  

pain  and  suffering.  Due  to  the  accident,  the  

appellant was treated as both an in-patient and  

out-patient,  and  considering  the  nature  of  

injuries, MACT awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head  

of loss of income during treatment period. MACT  

also awarded Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses to  

the  appellant  even  though  no  medical  bills  or  

prescriptions  were  produced.  MACT  assessed  4

disability of the whole body at 20%, and took  

monthly  salary  to  be  Rs.3,500/-  and  hence  

assessed loss of future income at Rs.1,51,200/-  

(Rs.3500 X 12 X 18 X 20/100). MACT also awarded  

Rs.10,000/-  towards  loss  of  marriage  prospects  

and  Rs.10,000/-  toward  frustration,  unhappiness  

and discomfort, Rs.10,000/- towards transport and  

conveyance  and  Rs.15,000/-  towards  loss  of  

amenities  of  life,  Rs.5000/-  towards  attendant  

charges  and  Rs.10,000/-  towards  food  and  

nourishment.  Accordingly,  total  compensation  

payable  to  the  appellant  amounted  to  

Rs.2,81,200/- with costs and simple interest at  

6% p.a. It was payable jointly and severally by  5

the  owner  and  Insurance  Company  respectively.  

However, in view of the insurance policy only the  

Insurance Company was liable to pay the entire  

compensation.

1.Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal to  

the  High  Court  of  Karnataka.  The  High  Court  

partly  allowed  the  appeal  and  modified  the  

compensation  awarded  by  the  MACT  as  follows:-  

Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/-  

for loss of income during period of treatment,  

Rs.5,000/-  for  medical  expenses,  Rs.3,78,000/-  

(Rs.3500 X 12 X 18 X 50%) for loss of earning  

capacity and loss of future earnings, Rs.75,000/-  6

for  loss  of  amenities  and  enjoyment  of  life,  

including loss of marital prospects, Rs.10,000/-  

for  conveyance  charges,  Rs.5,000/-  towards  

attendant  charges  and  Rs.10,000/-  towards  food  

and  nourishment.  Thus,  total  compensation  was  

enhanced to Rs.5,48,000/- with 6% interest p.a.  

payable  from  date  of  the  claim  petition  till  

realization.

1.Being  still  aggrieved,  the  appellant  preferred  

the  present  appeal  for  further  enhancement  of  

compensation. Having gone through the material on  

record and after hearing the parties, we are of  

7

the opinion that the compensation amount deserves  

to be enhanced.  

1.We  note  that  before  the  MACT,  the  appellant  

contended that he was earning a monthly salary of  

Rs.6000/- as a centering worker. He produced a  

salary certificate to that effect. Further, his  

employer  also  stated  that  the  appellant  was  

working under him as a building centering worker  

for the last two years and was drawing a salary  

of Rs.6,000/- per month. The appellant was also  

getting boarding and lodging in the house of his  

employer. However, from the cross-examination of  

his  employer,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  8

appellant  was  earning  Rs.6,000/-  per  month.  We  

accept that the monthly income of the appellant  

cannot exceed Rs.4,000/-.  

1.High  Court  arrived  at  a  disability  of  50%  by  

looking  into  Schedule-I  to  the  Workmen  

Compensation Act, 1923, where percentage of loss  

of earning capacity due to amputation below knee  

with stump exceeding 12.70 cms. was determined at  

50%. In the present case, the doctor had assessed  

permanent residual physical disability of about  

70% of right lower limb, which is about 35% of  

the whole body.

9

1.It  is  clear  that  the  appellant  is  a  manual  

labourer and loss of his leg below the knee will  

drastically  affect  his  ability  to  perform  

building centering work, or even any other manual  

labour.  Hence,  we  sustain  the  disability  

assessment by the High Court.  As the appellant  

is aged 20 years, a multiplier of 18 has been  

correctly selected.

1.Accordingly,  compensation  for  loss  of  future  

earnings amounts to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.4000 X 12 X  

18 X 50%).

1

1.The appellant is aged just 20 years and one of  

his legs has been amputated below the knee. It  

will  not  only  severely  affect  his  future  

prospects of earning, but he will also have to be  

permanently  disabled  for  life  and  suffer  the  

necessary discomforts accompanying living without  

a  leg.  It  greatly  minimizes  his  chances  of  

getting married. In light of all this, we enhance  

amount  awarded  for  loss  of  amenities  and  

enjoyment  of  life,  including  loss  of  marital  

prospects, to Rs.3,00,000/-. We also enhance the  

amount awarded for medical expenses for his whole  

life  to  Rs.1,00,000/-,  conveyance  charges  to  

Rs.50,000/-  and  for  food  and  nourishment  to  1

Rs.50,000/-  considering  the  nature  of  injuries  

sustained by the appellant. Compensation awarded  

by  the  High  Court  under  the  other  heads  is  

sustained.

1.Accordingly, the break-up of compensation is as  

follows:

Pain and suffering -Rs.  50,000/-

Loss of income during treatment -Rs.  15,000/-

Medical expenses for whole life -Rs.1,00,000/-

Loss of future earnings -Rs.4,32,000/-

Loss of amenities & enjoyment of  Life Including loss of marital  Prospects -Rs.3,00,000/-

1

Conveyance charges -Rs.  50,000/-

Food and nourishment -Rs.  50,000/-

TOTAL -Rs.9,97,000/-

1.Accordingly,  compensation  is  enhances  to  

Rs.9,97,000/-,  which  we  round  off  to  

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs). Interest shall  

be payable on the enhanced amount at 9% p.a.

1.It appears that by an order of this Court dated  

30.3.2011,  the  name  of  the  driver  of  the  

offending vehicle was deleted from the array of  

parties. Thus, compensation shall be paid to the  

1

appellant  jointly  and  severally  by  the  

respondents.  

1.The appeal is partly allowed.

1.No order as to costs.

.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

.......................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) April 29, 2011

1