REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8420 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1159 of 2018)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre                                  …Appellant

Versus

Pratap Son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Another     …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present Appeal by Special Leave has been filed against

the final judgment and order in F.A. No. 1353 of 2015 dated

25.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

1

Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) in  a  claim under the  Motor

Vehicles Act.  

3. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are

as follows:

3.1. The Appellant herein is the Claimant, who was 29 year

old  at the time  of the accident, and employed  as a

driver, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 8,500.

On  16.10.2009, at about 9:30  a.m. the  Appellant

and his wife were travelling by motorcycle from Pune

towards Tambewasi, when a Maruti Car bearing

Registration No. MH­14/AE 1108 owned and driven by

Respondent No. 1 collided  with them. The car was

coming from the wrong side of the road, and was trying

to overtake a State Transport  Bus,  when it hit the

Appellant’s motor cycle.

The Appellant fell on the road and sustained multiple

injuries. The Appellant fractured his right thigh, right

ankle, and right arm. He was admitted in various

hospitals for treatment, and underwent several

2

operations where steel rods were inserted in his right

thigh and right knee. Artificial material was inserted in

his right shoulder to facilitate restricted movement. The

injuries suffered by the Appellant resulted in

Permanent Disability to the extent of 75% for which a

Disability Certificate was submitted before the MACT.

Appellant also filed an Injury Certificate which records

the various injuries suffered by him.  

3.2. With respect to the  injuries sustained by  the wife,  a

separate Claim Petition was filed before the MACT. The

present Appeal pertains only to the claim for

enhancement of compensation made by the Appellant.

3.3. The Appellant filed Claim Petition bearing M.A.C.P. No.

33 of 2014 before the Ld. Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bhoom seeking compensation under various

heads amounting to Rs. 20,00,000 against Respondent

No. 1 – the owner of the Maruti Car and Respondent

No. 2 –Insurance Company.  

3

3.4. The MACT vide Order dt. 07.02.2015 partly allowed the

Claim Petition  and granted Rs.  7,00,000 as  a lump­

sum compensation payable jointly and severally by

both the  Respondents  within one  month along  with

Interest @ 7% p.a. on the compensation amount from

the date of the Claim Petition till the date of realization. The  MACT erroneously  made a departure from the

multiplier method, and granted a lump­sum amount as

compensation. The Tribunal did not grant

compensation under various heads such as actual loss

of income, future loss of income, medical expenses, and

compensation for permanent disability sustained.  

3.5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation

granted by the MACT, and the method used for

awarding compensation, the present Appellant filed

First Appeal u/S. 173 of the M.V. Act for enhancement

of compensation, before the High Court. The High

Court vide its Judgment dated 25.01.2017 partly

allowed the Appeal by enhancing the compensation to

Rs. 14,65,500 with 9% Interest p.a. from the date of

4

application, till realization.  The High Court  held  that

lump­sum compensation cannot be awarded, and the

multiplier method must be followed. The compensation

awarded by the High Court was as follows:

Claim Amount awarded (in INR)

i. Loss of future income  (60,000 x 17)

10,20,000

ii. Loss of actual income 5,500

iii. Pains and sufferings 1,00,000

iv. Medical expenses  2,00,000

v. Attendance and conveyance charges 70,000

vi. Special diet and nutrition 20,000

vii. Loss of amenities in future life 50,000

TOTAL 14,65,500   

3.6. The Appellant has challenged the judgment of the High

Court by way of the present Appeal by Special Leave

Petition.  

5

4. We have heard counsel for both parties, and carefully

perused the record filed before the Court.  

The undisputed facts of the present case are: 4.1. Both the Courts below have found from the evidence,

that the  Respondent  was  driving  his car rashly  and

negligently.

4.2. The Appellant,  who was a young 29 year old on the

date of the accident, has suffered serious injuries

which have caused Permanent Disability to the extent

of 75%. The Appellant produced his Orthopedic Doctor

who corroborated that the Appellant was hospitalized

from 25.10.2010 to 09.11.2010, and again from

25.11.2010 to 05.12.2010. The Appellant had

sustained multiple injuries which resulted in

Permanent  Disability to the extent of 75% which is

evidenced from the Disability Certificate issued by his

Doctor.  On account  of the  Permanent  Disability, the

Appellant is not able to drive any motor vehicle.  

4.3. As a consequence of the accident, the Appellant lost his

employment as a driver, and his livelihood. Before the

6

accident, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.

8,500. In order to prove his income, the Appellant

produced his employer Mr. Neeraj Rajendra Tiwari

before the High Court as Witness No. 3.  

Mr. Neeraj Tiwari deposed that he was working as a

General Manager in Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. from

June, 2008, and was the head of the Engine

Department.  He further deposed that the  Appellant

was employed by him, and was driving his  personal

car from 01.08.2008 on a monthly salary of Rs. 8,500.

He also gave a certificate to that effect.  

The High Court erroneously concluded that it would

be just and appropriate if the monthly income of the

Appellant is considered  at  Rs.  5,000 on  the  ground

that the salary of  Rs.  8500  for  a driver  was on the

higher side.  

We do  not  agree  with the  reasoning given by the

High Court for not accepting the income of the

7

Appellant. The income of the Appellant must be taken

as Rs. 8500 per month.

4.4. The Appellant submitted that even though his

permanent disablement is 75%, his ability to earn his

income was reduced by 100%, as he is not able to move

or do any work.

5. In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and

disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must

not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for

the non­pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the

injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for his

inability to lead a full life, and enjoy those things and

amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries.

6.  The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act

is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the

position prior to the accident.  

8

This Court in Yadav Kumar v. The Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd.1  explained “just

compensation” in the following words:

“It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the Tribunal and the Court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a ‘just compensation’. It is obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of ‘just compensation’ obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the Tribunals and Courts. This reasonableness on the part of the Tribunal and Court must be on a large peripheral field.”

7.  The Appellant would be entitled to compensation as follows:

7.1. The Appellant’s income was Rs. 8,500 per month. The

Appellant was 29 year at the time of the accident. The

Multiplier laid down in  Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Ors.2 would be 17.  

7.2. Loss of future income must be calculated in terms of

the judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar3

wherein the Court held that where the claimant suffers

a Permanent Disability as a result of injuries, the 1 ( 2010 ) 10 SCC 341 2  (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2011) 1 SCC 343

9

assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings

would depend upon the impact and effect of the

Permanent Disability on his earning capacity. The effect

of the Permanent Disability on the earning capacity of

the injured must be considered; and after assessing the

loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the

income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to

arrive  at the future loss  of earnings  suffered  by the

claimant.  Hence, the  compensation to  be  awarded  is

calculated as follows: i. Minimum annual income of  Appellant  =

8,500 x 12 = Rs. 1,02,000 ii. Loss of future income at the level of his

disability (i.e. 75%) = 75% of 1,02,000 =

Rs. 76,500 p.a.  iii. Multiplier applicable (29 years) = 17 iv. Loss of future earnings = 76,500 x 17 =

Rs. 13,00,500 7.3. The Appellant has claimed compensation for actual loss

of income at Rs. 1,50,000. This claim of the Appellant

cannot succeed. The grant of loss of future income

10

compensates for any further period of time where

income  was lost.  Actual loss of income can  only  be

awarded for the  month in  which the accident took

place. Therefore, one month’s salary being Rs. 8,500 be

awarded for the month of October.  

7.4. The Appellant has claimed reimbursement of Medical

Expenses at Rs. 2,50,000.  The MACT in para 4 of the judgment recorded that

the Claimant had incurred total expenditure of Rs.

5,50,000 till the date of the  judgment  for  medicines,

hospital charges, doctor’s fee, operation charges,

travelling expenses  and  expense for special  diet and

granted Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation based on actual

expenditure.  

Since the Appellant has claimed expenses for special

diet and attendance charges separately before this

Court, we find it appropriate to award Rs. 2,50,000 as

claimed by him on account of recurring medical

expenses.

11

7.5. The Appellant has claimed Rs. 90,000 for attendance

and conveyance charges. The High Court had granted

Rs. 70,000. Keeping in consideration the injury

suffered, the Appellant has permanently lost the source

of livelihood as his movement has got severely

restricted with permanent impairment of the right side

of his body. As he is permanently disabled for life,

towards the attendance and conveyance charges  we

grant to the Appellant Rs. 90,000 as claimed.

7.6. The Appellant made a claim for Rs.1,00,000 for special

diet and nutrition. The High Court awarded Rs. 20,000

on this account. This amount seems to be meager to

this Court given inflationary trends, and increased

costs of living.  In  Puttamma and  Ors. v.  K.L.  Narayana  Reddy

and Anr.4 this Court has stated: “... we hold that the Second Schedule as  was enacted in 1994 has now become redundant, irrational and unworkable due to changed scenario including the present cost of living and current rate of inflation and increased life expectancy.”

4 (2013) 15 SCC 45

12

In view of the said principle, compensation for

special diet and nutrition be enhanced to Rs. 80,000.

7.7. The compensation for loss of amenities in future life is

enhanced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000.

7.8. The  Appellant  has further claimed compensation for

pain  and suffering  at  Rs. 2,00,000.  The  High  Court

awarded the Appellant Rs. 1,00,000 on this count. In

case of permanent disability to the extent of 75%, and

loss of livelihood of the sole bread winner of the family,

it is not only the victim, but also his kith and kin who

face the trauma. The Appellant has had steel rods and

artificial material inserted into his body through

surgery. His income earning capacity has been reduced

by 100%.  

In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to

award the Appellant Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for

the life­long pain and suffering by him and his family. 8. The total compensation awarded above is set out

hereinbelow:

13

Compensation Amount awarded  (in INR)

i)Loss of future income 13,00,500 ii)Loss of actual income 8,500 iii)Medical expenses 2,50,000 iv)Attendance and conveyance charges 90,000

v)Special diet and nutrition 80,000 vi)Loss of amenities in future life 1,00,000

vii)Pain and suffering 2,00,000 Total 20,29,000

The Appellant is entitled to payment of a total compensation

of Rs. 20,29,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Nine

Thousand Only) along with Simple Interest at 9% p.a. from

the date of the application made before the MACT on

11.10.2010 till the date of payment from both the

Respondents, who are jointly and severally liable for the

same.  The  amount  be  paid to the  Appellant  within twelve

weeks from the date of this judgment.

14

9. Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.

Pending applications if any are accordingly disposed of.

…………………..………..J. (R. F. Nariman)

…………………..……….J. (Indu Malhotra)

New Delhi August 21, 2018

15