Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5601-5602 OF 2007

M.D. JACOB         ... APPELLANT

VS.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE  LTD. & ANR.      ... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  and  

learned  counsel  for  the  respondent-Insurance  

Company.

2. The appellant was a victim of road accident on  

27th July,  1997.   On  account  of  several  serious  

injuries  including  amputation  of  complete  left

Page 2

hand, severe injuries in head, dislocation of bones  

in hip and both knees and severe injuries in foot,  

the Doctor assessed his disability at 100%.

3. The appellant preferred a claim petition before  

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chennai and  

sought  compensation  of  Rs.26,00,000/-  (rupees  

twenty  six  lacs).  The  Claims  Tribunal  allowed  a  

claim for Rs.14,20,000/- (rupees fourteen lacs and  

twenty thousand only) vide judgment dated 9.8.2000  

rendered in M.C.O.P. No. 3365 of 1997.  The claim  

allowed on different heads includes:

(i) Loss  of  income  for  one  year  as  

Rs.60,000/-;

(ii) Special  diet  and  transportation-

Rs.50,000/-

(iii) Medical expenses –Rs.50,000/-

(iv) Pain and suffering – Rs.2,00,000/-

(v) Permanent disability – Rs.4,00,000/-

(vi) Loss of future earning – Rs.6,60,000/-

2

Page 3

4. The Insurance Company preferred appeal before  

the High Court at Madras and by the order under  

appeal dated 13.11.2006 passed in C.M.A. Nos. 1963  

of  2000  and  12  of  2001  the  High  Court,  while  

maintaining the Award under the first three heads,  

reduced the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for pain and  

suffering  to  Rs.1,00,000/-,  Rs.4,00,000/-  for  

permanent  disability  to  Rs.3,00,000/-  and  

Rs.6,60,000/-  as  loss  of  future  earning  to  

Rs.3,96,000/-.  As a result of aforesaid reduction,  

the  appellant  has  been  held  entitled  only  to  

Rs.9,56,000/-  (rupees  nine  lacs  and  fifty  six  

thousand only) in place of Rs.14,20,000/- (rupees  

fourteen lacs and twenty thousands only). Assailing  

the order under appeal on account of reduction of  

compensation  under  the  three  heads  noted  above,  

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  taken  us  

through  the  materials  on  record  including  the  

judgment of the Tribunal and the judgment of the  

High Court under appeal.

3

Page 4

5. It  has  been  shown  that  the  Tribunal  has  

discussed all the available materials in detail for  

coming to a cogent and well reasoned finding for  

calculating the loss of future earning on the basis  

of monthly income of Rs.5,000/- whereas the High  

Court  reduced  the  monthly  income  to  Rs.3,000/-  

without specifying any reasons for reversing the  

finding of the Tribunal.  The Tribunal considered  

oral evidence of the claimant as well as documents  

such as Ext. P.4 and Ext. P.5 showing that the  

applicant had experience of working as Electrician  

and was employed as such.  In the light of all the  

relevant  materials  the  Tribunal  assessed  the  

earning  capacity  of  the  appellant  as  Rs.5,000/-  

p.m. and accordingly allowed a sum of Rs.60,000/-  

as loss of earning capacity for a period of one  

year and by adopting the multiplier of 11 allowed  

Rs.6,60,000/- as loss of future earning.

6. The  High  Court  did  not  interfere  with  the  

multiplier  and  as  indicated  above,  without  good  

4

Page 5

reasons treated the monthly income of the appellant  

to  be  Rs.3,000/-  in  place  of  Rs.5,000/-.  

Inexplicably the High court has retained loss of  

income  for  one  year  to  be  Rs.60,000/-  which  is  

possible only if the monthly income is accepted to  

be Rs.5,000/-.  There is no reason assigned even  

for reducing the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for  

pain  and  suffering  to  Rs.1,00,000/-  and  of  

Rs.4,00,000/-  for  permanent  disability  to  

Rs.3,00,000/-.

7. Considering  that  the  appellant  had  suffered  

100% disability, in our view, the learned Tribunal  

was quite justified in allowing Rs.14,20,000/- as  

total compensation on the basis of monthly income  

of  Rs.5,000/-.   The  judgment  of  the  High  Court  

under  appeal  is  therefore  set  aside  and  the  

judgment  and  order  of  the  Tribunal  is  restored.  

The dues payable to the appellant on account of  

this order should be deposited by the respondent-

Insurance Company with the Tribunal within eight  

5

Page 6

weeks along with interest on such amount at the  

rate of 9% to be paid from the date of petition  

i.e. 27.08.1997. The appellant shall be entitled to  

withdraw the said amount without any condition.  

8. The  appeals  are  allowed  to  the  aforesaid  

extent.  No costs.

     ……………………………………………C.J.I.   (P. SATHASIVAM)

……………………………………………………J.  (RANJAN GOGOI)

……………………………………………………J.  (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)

New Delhi, January 21, 2014.   

6