2018 INSC 0566
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 Kumar 3
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