2020 INSC 0360
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2611 OF 2020
(arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 9689 of 2018)
SAVITHA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/s. CHODAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, a housewife, is in appeal against inadequacy
of compensation granted to her in a motor accident case.
3. The appellant while travelling in a bus belonging to respondent
no.3 on 25.12.2008 met with an accident when a lorry rashly and
negligently dashed against the bus.   The appellant suffered nine
injuries  out   of  which   seven  were  grievous   in  nature.    P.W.4,  the
Orthopedic   Surgeon   who   operated   upon   the   appellant,   deposed
that   she   had   suffered   32   per   cent   total   body   disability   and   was
1

not   capable   of   doing   household   work.     The   Tribunal   awarded   a
total   compensation   of   Rs.5,82,500/­   with   interest   at   the   rate   of
6%, redetermined by the High Court in appeal at Rs.6,50,350/­.
4. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the
assessment   of   income  at   Rs.4,250/­   per   month   was  inadequate.
The appellant  had claimed an income of Rs.6,000/­ p.m. from  a
tailoring   business   which   should   have   been   the   basis   for
assessment of loss of income. The medical opinion of P.W.4 with
regard   to   extent   of   whole   body   disability   has   been   arbitrarily
reduced to 20%.
5. Learned   counsel   for   respondent   no.1   submitted   that   the
High   Court   has   adequately   enhanced   the   compensation   which
calls for no further interference.  
6. We   have   considered   the   submissions   on   behalf   of   the
parties.     The   appellant   failed   to   lead   any   evidence   in   support   of
her   claimed   profession   as   a   tailor   earning   approximately
Rs.6,000/­ p.m. and therefore it has rightly been rejected.
2

7. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the appellant
as a housewife at Rs.3,000/­ p.m., which has been enhanced by
the  High Court  to  Rs.4,250/­  and we  find  no  reason  to  interfere
with   the   same.     The   appellant   has   been   awarded   Rs.3,00,000/­
towards   medical   expenses   as   she   failed   to   lead   acceptable
evidence   in   support   of   her   claim   for   Rs.4,00,000/­.   We   find   no
reason   to   interfere   with   the   same   also.     However,   we   are   of   the
considered   opinion   that   considering   the   nature   of   injuries   and
age  of   the   appellant   the   award  of   Rs.25,000/­   only  towards  loss
of amenities and future happiness is inadequate and is enhanced
to Rs.50,000/­. 
8. P.W.4,   the   Orthopedic   Surgeon,   deposed   that   the   appellant
had   suffered   nine   injuries,   of   which   seven   were   grievous   in
nature   and   she   had   to   undergo   two   surgeries   which   left   her
disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the
aid   of   crutches.     Her   whole   body   disability   was   medically
assessed   at   32%.   The   Tribunal,   by   hairsplitting   the   expert
evidence   assessed   the   whole   body   disability   at   15%.   The   High
3

Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable
to determine the whole body disability at 20%.
9. The appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of
the   whole   body   disability   of   32%   as   opined   by   P.W.4.     The
compensation   under   that   head   is   therefore   redrawn   awarding
Rs.2,12,160/­ (Rs.4250 x 12 x 13 x 32%).   
10. The   appellant   is   therefore   held   entitled   to   a   total
compensation  of Rs.7,54,910/ ­   along  with  interest at  the  rate of
six per cent from the date of petition till the date of realization.
11. The appeal is allowed.
. ……………………….J.
  (R.F. Nariman)
………………………..J.
   (Navin Sinha)  
………………………..J.
   (B.R. Gavai)  
New Delhi,
June 16, 2020
4