What was the extent of disability taken into account?
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.168 — Determination of income — Oral evidence of the spouse — Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav — Held: In the absence of any material to discard the oral evidence of the claimant's wife as to his earnings, the monthly income ought not to be pitched below the deposed figure; following Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, the income of the injured claimant is fixed at Rs.10,000 per month rather than the Rs.7,500 taken by the Tribunal and the High Court. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Permanent disability — Future prospects — Re-computation — Held further: On the enhanced income, with a forty per cent addition for future prospects, the multiplier applicable to the claimant aged twenty-seven, a hundred per cent functional permanent disability and the conventional heads of medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet, loss of amenities, loss of income during treatment and pain and suffering, the compensation is re-worked in accordance with settled principles. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Enhancement — Disposition — Held further: The compensation payable to the claimant is enhanced to Rs.37,51,000, and the impugned award as modified by the High Court stands further modified to that extent, interest being paid as awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal allowed.
Why did the Court raise the claimant's assessed monthly income?
Because there was no material to discard the oral evidence of the claimant's wife as to his earnings; following Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, the income was fixed at Rs.10,000 per month instead of the Rs.7,500 adopted below.
What was the extent of disability taken into account?
A hundred per cent functional permanent disability, as enhanced by the High Court and accepted, forming the basis of the re-worked compensation.
To what figure was the compensation finally enhanced?
To Rs.37,51,000, on the enhanced income with 40% future prospects, the applicable multiplier and the conventional heads.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2023 in MFA No.100308/2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th December, 2020 passed in MVC No.111/2015 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hangal.
The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 24 th June, 2014, the driver of the offending goods vehicle bearing No.KA-16/A-6260, while driving rashly and negligently, dashed into the Claimant-Appellant, aged 27 years, who was travelling on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-02/EC-3487 from Kashambi village. Upon collision, the Claimant-Appellant sustained injuries and, as such, was taken to SDM Hospital, Dharwad, where he was treated and remained admitted for two months completely bedridden.
The Claimant-Appellant filed an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- with cost and interest @18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation, submitting therein that he was working as a Goundy and earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month before the accident and was the sole breadwinner of his family. After the incident, due to mental and physical suffering, he is not in a position to do any work.
The Tribunal, by its judgment and order, directed the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.6,78,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal considered the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant to be Rs.7,500/- per month and the permanent disability to be 20%.
Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the Claimant-Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the disability has been incorrectly assessed at 20% by the Tribunal, while the Appellant has actually suffered 100% functional disability. Furthermore, his monthly income should have been taken as Rs.10,000/-.
The High Court, vide the impugned order, enhanced the amount awarded to the Claimant-Appellant with an additional sum of Rs.18,90,938/-. The High Court enhanced the percentage of disability suffered to 100%, and as such, the compensation awarded by the High Court was as under:
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
Monthly Income Rs.7,500/- Yearly Income 7500 X 12 = Rs.9,00,000/- Future Prospects (40%) Rs.10,500/- per month Multiplier (17) 84,000 X 17 = Rs.14,28,000/- Permanent Disability (100%) Rs.21,42,000/- Special Diet Rs.50,000/- Loss of Amenities Rs.30,000/- Loss of Income during Rs.45,000/- treatment Medical Expenses Rs.1,96,938/- Pain and Suffering Rs.75,000/- Total Rs.25,68,938/-
Yet dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. He submits that his salary ought to have been taken as Rs.10,000/- per month.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the Appellant. This Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav[^1] had placed reliance on the statement of the deceased’s wife therein to establish the income of the person. Similarly, in the absence of any material to discard the oral evidence of PW[^1] Wife, we deem it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant as Rs.10,000/-.
As a result of the discussion above, the compensation now payable to the Claimant-Appellant is itemised as under:
FINAL COMPENSATION
Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Monthly Income Rs.10,000/- Yearly Income 10000 X 12 = Rs.1,20,000/- National Insurance Future Prospects (40%) 1,20,000 + 48,000 = Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Rs.1,68,000/- Sethi Multiplier (17) 1,68,000 X 13 = (2017) 16 SCC 680 Rs.28,56,000/- Para 42 & 59 Permanent Disability 28,56,000 X 100% = (100%) Rs. 28,56,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.2,00,000/- Kajal v. Jagdish Chand Attendant Charges 10,000 x 17 = Rs.1,70,000/- (2020) 4 SCC 413 Para 19 and 25 Special Diet & Rs.50,000/- Sidram v. Transportation Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439 Para 89 Pain and Suffering Rs.4,00,000/- K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14 Loss of Income during Rs.45,000/- Raj treatment Kumar v. Ajay Kumar Loss of Amenities Rs.30,000/- (2011) 1 SCC 343 Para 6 TOTAL Rs.37,51,000/- Thus, the difference in compensation is as under: MACT High Court This Court Rs.6,78,000/- Rs.25,68,938/- Rs.37,51,000/-
The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned award dated 4th December, 2020 passed in MVC No.111/2015 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hangal, as modified vide the impugned order, stands further modified in terms of the above. Interest is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ……………………………………J. (SANJAY KAROL) …………………………………….J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA) February 11, 2025; New Delhi.
Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC when limitation is a mixed question?
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14807 OF 2024 · Supreme Court of India
Must stray dogs removed from schools and hospitals be released back to the same location?
2025 INSC 1357 · Supreme Court of India
Are the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 binding on a State Government issuing an aggregator licence?
2023 INSC 102 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy