1  

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL No 2217 OF 2018  [Arising out of SLP (C) No 7739 OF 2017  

JAGDISH                          .....APPELLANT      

Versus         

MOHAN & ORS.            .....RESPONDENTS   

J U D G M E N T    

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J  

1 The appellant was injured in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded  

compensation of Rs. 12,81,228/- for the injuries suffered by him. The High Court  

enhanced the award of compensation by an amount of Rs.2,19,000/-. Interest of 7.5  

per cent per annum has been awarded from the date of the filing of the claim. The  

appellant seeks an enhancement of compensation.   

2  

2 The appellant was 24 years of age when the accident took place on 24  

November 2011. The accident occurred at 4pm when the appellant and another  

person were riding on a motor cycle. The appellant who was riding the motor cycle  

at a moderate speed indicated to a dumper which was ahead of him to allow him to  

pass. When the appellant was passing the vehicle, it swerved on the driver’s side  

and hit the motor cycle of the appellant. The appellant was injured in the course of  

the accident.   

 3 The nature of the injuries is evident from the following extract from the  

judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kota.                                               

 “As for the claimant due to the injuries received by the claimant he  

has suffered 90% permanent disability…  

The claimant came to give evidence in the matter…  

looking at both the hands of the claimant it was noted that…  

the hands are not able to perform any function.  It has also been  

submitted on behalf of the claimant that the claimant himself is  

unable to eat food or go to toilet for which he requires the  

assistance of someone else as both his hands are unable to  

perform any function as it has been stated in Exhibit 168.  In such  

situation if a person of labour class suffers from an injury due to  

which 90% of both his hands are unable to perform any function  

then in such situation the claimant would have same difficulty  

which would be the permanent disability of his body.  Therefore  

relying on Exhibit 168 I hold that there has been loss of 90% of  

earning ability of the claimant”.  

   4 The Tribunal found that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the  

dumper and that the appellant was liable to be compensated for the injuries sustained  

by him.  

5 In computing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the  

appellant was a carpenter and had claimed that he was in receipt of an income of

3  

Rs. 6,000/- per month. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal took  

the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 4,050/-. The appellant having been found  

to suffer from 90 per cent disability, the loss of the future monthly income was  

computed at Rs. 3645/-. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 and held that the  

appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of future income of Rs. 7,87,320/-  

(Rs. 3645 X 12 X 18). The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1.80 lakhs on account  

of mental and physical hardship and agony, Rs. 90,000/- for loss of comfort, Rs.  

25,000/- for expenses and Rs. 95,908/- on account of medical expenses. An amount  

of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded for attendant charges. The Tribunal awarded a total  

amount of Rs. 12,81,228/- as compensation on which interest was allowed at the rate  

of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. No amount  

was awarded towards expenses for future treatment.  

 6 In appeal, the High Court awarded an additional amount of Rs. 2,19,000/-. The  

High Court directed that if the enhanced amount is not deposited within 8 weeks, it  

would carry interest at 9 per cent per annum.  

 7 The appellant has sought an enhancement of compensation under the  

following heads:  

(i) The Tribunal ought to have, but did not award any amount towards loss of future  

prospects. The appellant submits that in view of the recent judgment of the  

Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi1,  

he would be entitled to be compensated for loss of future prospects even though  

he is self-employed;  

                                                 1 (2017) 13 SCALE 12

4  

(ii) According to the appellant, the nature of the injuries suffered, resulting in a total  

loss of the functionality of both the hands would require compensation to be  

computed on the basis of a disability of 100 per cent and not 90 per cent; and   

(iii) The income as claimed of Rs. 6,000/- per month should be the basis of  

computation and not Rs. 4,050/- as allowed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the  

High Court.  

8 In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne  

in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by  

an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation  

must cover among others, the following aspects:  

(i)  Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;  

(ii)   Loss of income including future income;  

(iii)  The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;  

(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to  

undertake in future; and  

(v) Loss of expectation of life.  

 In Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.  

Ltd2, this Court held:  

“The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an  

accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts  

should always be made to award adequate compensation not only  

                                                 2 2011 (12) SCALE 658

5  

for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering  

and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim’s  

inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would  

have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.”     

 In K Suresh v New India Assurance Company Ltd3, this Court adverted to the  

earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra v Randhir Singh4 and B Kothandapani v  

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited5. The Court held that  

compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of future earnings for  

the first head relates to the impairment of a person’s capacity while the other relates  

to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself.  

 In Govind Yadav v New India Insurance Company Limited6, this Court adverted to  

the earlier decisions in R D Hattangadi v Pest Control (India) (Pvt) Ltd.7 , Nizam’s  

Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S Dhananka8, Reshma Kumari v  

Madam Mohan9, Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Company  

Limited10, and Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar11 and held thus:  

“18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar  

Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay  

Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts  

in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the  

victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or  

temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent  

disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate  

compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but  

also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life  

and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the  

disability caused due to the accident.” (Id at page 693)  

                                                 3 (2012)12SCC274   4 (1990) 3 SCC 723  5 (2011) 6 SCC 420  6 (2011) 10 SCC 683  7 (1995) 1 SCC 551  8 (2009) 6 SCC 1  9 (2009) 13 SCC 422  10 (2010) 10 SCC 254  11 (2011) 1 SCC 343

6  

These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Subulaxmi v MD Tamil  

Nadu State Transport Corporation12 delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as  

the learned Chief Justice then was).   

 9 Having regard to these principles, it would be now appropriate to assess the  

case of the appellant for enhancement of compensation. The accident took place on  

24 November 2011. The appellant was a skilled carpenter and self-employed. The  

claim of the appellant that his earnings were Rs. 6,000/- per month cannot be  

discarded. This claim cannot be regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a  

realistic assessment of the situation on the date of the accident.  

 10 In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court  

has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who  

have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of  

a self-employed person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should  

be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years.  

Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs.  

2400/- towards loss of future prospects.   

   11 In making the computation in the present case, the court must be mindful of  

the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a  

loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it  

requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a complete  

                                                 12 Civil Appeal No. 7750 of 2012, decided on 1 November 2012

7  

deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing – at least in the facts of this case – can  

restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt  

of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should  

not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it  

does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the  

trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse of  

rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift  

from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable  

rights as intrinsic to human dignity.      

The Tribunal has noted that the appellant is unable to even eat or to attend to a visit  

to the toilet without the assistance of an attendant. In this background, it would be a  

denial of justice to compute the disability at 90 per cent. The disability is indeed total.  

Having regard to the age of the appellant, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18. In  

the circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the loss  

of income, including future prospects, would be Rs. 18,14,400/-. In addition to this  

amount, the appellant should be granted an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of  

pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards  

medical expenses (Rs. 98,908/-); for extra nourishment (Rs. 25,000/-) and for  

attendant’s expenses (Rs. 1 lakh) is maintained. The Tribunal has declined to award  

any amount towards future treatment. The appellant should be allowed an amount of  

Rs. 3 lakhs towards future medical expenses. The appellant is thus awarded a total  

sum of Rs. 25,38,308/- by way of compensation. The appellant would be entitled to  

interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of the

8  

filing of the claim petition. The liability to pay compensation has been fastened by the  

Tribunal and by the High Court on the insurer, owner and driver jointly and severally  

which is affirmed. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period  

of 6 weeks from today and shall be paid over to the appellant upon proper  

identification.   

 12 The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.       

............................................CJI                                           [DIPAK MISRA]         

            …….........................................J                                  [A M KHANWILKAR]        

                             ….............................................J                                 [Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD]    New Delhi  March 6, 2018