REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO..7823 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6617 of 2011)

A. Sridhar              .........….. Appellant

versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.        ..............Respondents

J U D G M E N T

H.L. DATTU, J.

1. Leave granted.   

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed  

by the High Court of Madras, Chennai in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal  

No. 1779 of 2002, wherein, the Court has allowed the appeal of the  

Insurance Company and reduced the compensation  awarded by the  

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (for short, “the Tribunal”)  

1

from `1,60,000/- to `25,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles  

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”).   

3. In the Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, the  

appellant has stated that on 14.01.1998, at about 7.10 PM, while he  

was riding the motor cycle along with a pillion rider, the vehicle met  

with an accident  due to oil  spill  on the road and suffered grievous  

injuries.  Since the vehicle is insured with the respondent-Insurance  

Company,  he is entitled for compensation of `6,00,000/- (Rupees Six  

Lakhs) as general damages/compensation.   

4. The Insurance Company has denied its liability.  The Tribunal,  

while  considering  the  claim  of  the  appellant,  has  come  to  the  

conclusion  that  the  accident  did  not  take  place  due  to  rash  and  

negligence driving of the claimant but due to oil spilling on the road.  

Accordingly, the Tribunal has assessed the compensation payable to  

the claimant at a sum of `1,60,000/- together with interest at 6% per  

annum under the Insurance Policy.   

5. In the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the High Court,  

has taken exception to the order passed by the Tribunal and has come  

to  the  conclusion  that  the  Tribunal  is  not  justified  in  allowing  the  

2

claim petition moved under Section 166 of the Act and ought to have  

determined the compensation payable under Section 140 of the Act.  

Accordingly, the High Court has modified the award and has reduced  

the compensation payable to `25,000/-.   

6. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order, the claimant is before us  

in this appeal.   

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

the record.  From the evidence on record, the Tribunal holds that the  

appellant, while driving the motor vehicle on the fateful day, met with  

an accident not because of the fault of the owner of the vehicle or  

because of the fault of the other vehicle, but because of the oil spill on  

the road.  Therefore, the negligence can be attributable only on the  

person  who  was  driving  the  vehicle  and  hence,  is  not  entitled  to  

compensation under the Insurance Policy.  Therefore, the High Court  

was justified in invoking the beneficial legislation and in directing the  

Insurance Company to pay limited amount by way of compensation to  

the injured person of an accident arising out of the use of a motor  

cycle on the basis of “no fault liability,” since the accident has arisen  

3

out of use of motor vehicle and has resulted in grievous injuries to the  

claimant.   

8. In view of the above, we do not see any legal infirmity in the  

Judgment  and  Order  passed  by  the  High  Court.   The  appeal  is,  

accordingly, dismissed.  Costs are made easy.    

  ..………………………J.                                                                           [G.S. SINGHVI]

..………………………J.                                                                           [H.L. DATTU]

New Delhi. September 13, 2011.  

4

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7824  OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6618 of 2011)

D. Sampath              .........….. Appellant

versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.        ..............Respondents

J U D G M E N T

H.L. DATTU, J.

1. Leave granted.   

2. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  Judgment  and  Order  

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Madras  in  Civil  

Miscellaneous Appeal  No. 2099 of 2002 dated 12.04.2010.  By  

the impugned judgment, the Court has modified the compensation  

awarded  by  the  Motor  Accident  Claims  Tribunal,  Chennai  (for  

short,  “the  Tribunal”)  in  MCOP  No.1971  of  1998  dated  

12.02.2002.   

3. The facts are not in dispute.  Claimant was a pillion rider of  

a motor cycle which was driven by one A. Sridhar.  It met with an  

accident due to oil spill on the road on 14.01.1998 at about 7.10  

P.M.  The claimant and the driver of the vehicle sustained injuries.  

Both of them were treated in the hospital for the injuries sustained  

by them.  The vehicle was insured with United India Insurance  

Company Ltd. – respondent No.1 by the owner of the vehicle –  

respondent  No.2.   The  claimant  filed  claim  petition  before  the  

Tribunal inter-alia requesting to award compensation at a sum of  

`12,00,000/-  (Rupees  Twelve  lakhs  only)  under  various  heads.  

Claimant  had  examined  himself  as  PW-2  and  other  witnesses,  

including Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan – PW-3, who had assessed the  

disability sustained by the claimant at 75%.  The Tribunal, after  

considering  the  various  factors,  including the  medical  evidence,  

had  quantified  the  compensation  payable  by  the  Insurance  

Company  at  a  sum  of  `3,50,000/-.   Being  aggrieved  by  the  

compensation  so  awarded  by  the  Tribunal,  the  claimant  had  

preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2099 of 2002, before the  

High  Court  of  judicature  at  Madras.  The  Court,  after  re-

considering  the  claim  of  the  claimant  and  re-appreciating  the

evidence on record, has enhanced the compensation to `4,90,000/-  

from `3,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.  It is this judgment and  

order which is called in question in this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis and  

perused the records.

5. We do not intend to disturb the judgment and order passed  

by the High Court except  to a limited extent.   The High Court,  

while  assessing  the  compensation  payable  to  the  claimant,  has  

arrived at the loss of earning capacity in a sum of ` 8,16,000/- and,  

thereafter,  though  the  Doctor  has  assessed  75%  disability,  has  

taken  into  account  50% disability  while  calculating  the  loss  of  

income without any rhyme or reason.  In our view, this is a mistake  

committed  by  the  High  Court.   It  is  no  doubt  true  that,  while  

making assessment,  there is  an element  of  guess  work,  but  that  

guess  work  again  must  have  reasonable  nexus  to  the  available  

material/evidence and the quantification made.  In the instant case,  

the claimant had not only examined himself to sustain the claim  

made in the petition but also Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan, PW-3, who  

has  stated  that  the  claimant  has  suffered  75%  disability,  by

referring to the Disability Certificate issued by a competent Doctor  

who  had  treated  the  claimant.   Though  the  Doctor  is  cross-

examined  at  length  by  learned  Advocate  for  the  Insurance  

Company,  nothing  adverse  to  the  interest  of  the  claimant  is  

elicited.  Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly accepted the evidence  

of  the  Doctor-PW-3.   However,  the  High Court  has  taken 50%  

disability into account while calculating the loss of income.  This,  

in our view, is  the mistake  committed  by the High Court.   We  

hastened to add that we are not saying that under all circumstances,  

the Court has to blindly accept the Disability Certificate produced  

by the claimant.    The Court  has the discretion to accept  either  

totally or partially or reject the Certificate so produced and marked  

in the trial  but,  that,  can be done only by assigning cogent and  

acceptable  reasons.   In  this  view  of  the  matter,  we  take  the  

disability suffered by the claimant at 75% and calculate the loss of  

income  of  the  claimant  keeping  in  view  the  loss  of  earning  

capacity of the claimant assessed by the High Court.  Accordingly,  

we  arrive  at  the  loss  of  earning  capacity  of  the  claimant  at  

`6,12,000/-.

6. In the result,  the appeal  is  partly allowed.   We direct  the  

Insurance Company to deposit a sum of `6,12,000/- after deducting  

the amount already paid or deposited with accrued interest of 6%  

from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment before  

the Tribunal within two months from today.  On such deposit, the  

Tribunal  is  directed  to  release  the  amount to  the  claimant.   No  

order as to costs.  

  ..………………………J.                                                                           [G.S. SINGHVI]

..………………………J.                                                                           [H.L. DATTU]

New Delhi, September 13, 2011.