Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.
SANDEEP KHANUJA – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ATUL DANDE & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1329 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 22790 OF 2013)
Decided On : 02-02-2017
(1966) 3 SCR 649; (1977) 3 SCC 64 – Relied upon
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Compensation in case of injury/disability – Effect of permanent disability on earning capacity of the injured – MACT applying correct test but erring in taking the view that 70% permanent disability would not impact earning capacity of appellant – Appellant, a professional chartered accountant, aged about 30 years – Suffering 70% permanent disability – Loss of future earning – Calls for grant of compensation with the adoption of multiplier method – MACT assessing monthly income to be 10,000 – Multiplier of 17 held admissible – Total compensation for loss of future earnings, permanent injury and mental and physical agony and frustration and disappointment towards life worked out to 19,93,227. (Para 15, 16, 17)
(2011) 1 SCC 343; (2010) 10 SCC 341; (1994) 2 SCC 176 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
In a motor accident claim MACT granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,35,227 to the appellant.
The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,35,000.
Finding of the Court:
Compensation enhanced.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Parties and Facts
The appellant, a 30-year-old professional Chartered Accountant, suffered fractures in both legs in a motor accident on July 8, 2006, caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1's car, resulting in 70% permanent disability. (!) [1000589890001][1000589890004][1000589890005][1000589890006] This disability impaired his mobility, affecting his ability to perform duties requiring movement, such as visiting clients, appearing before authorities, and conducting audits.[1000589890014]
Proceedings Below
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 5,35,227, including medical/transport expenses (Rs. 3,10,227), loss of income (Rs. 1,00,000), mental/physical agony (Rs. 30,000), rod removal (Rs. 25,000), and permanent disability (Rs. 70,000).[1000589890001] MACT assessed monthly income at Rs. 10,000 but held the disability did not impact earning capacity for desk-based work, refusing multiplier application.[1000589890005][1000589890008] The High Court enhanced to a lump sum of Rs. 6,35,000, acknowledging restricted movement but not applying multiplier.[1000589890002] (!) (!)
Supreme Court Holding
The multiplier method, logically sound and based on equity, equality, and necessity, applies not only to death claims but also to permanent injuries affecting future earning capacity; departure is rare.[1000589890011][1000589890012][1000589890013] (!) (!) (!) In injury cases, courts must assess the disability's impact on earning capacity, not mechanically equate percentage disability to economic loss.[1000589890013] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Here, MACT erred in finding no impact on a Chartered Accountant's earning capacity, as the profession requires mobility for client visits, statutory functions, and appearances before authorities.[1000589890014] The 70% permanent disability at a young age restricts movements, causing definite loss of efficiency and future earnings.[1000589890006][1000589890014] (!)
Compensation Awarded by Supreme Court
Using assessed income of Rs. 10,000/month (Rs. 1,20,000/year) and multiplier of 17 (based on age), loss of future earnings at 70% disability: Rs. 14,28,000. Enhanced mental/physical agony, frustration: Rs. 1,30,000. Total: Rs. 19,93,227 (plus interest and costs as per High Court).[1000589890016] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Appeal Outcome
Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced. (!) [1000589890017]
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Leave granted.
2. In a motor accident, the appellant herein suffered physical injuries. It happened on July 08, 2006 when the appellant was going on a scooter to Gram Pendri in the State of Chhattisgarh. When he reached near Gram Pendri, a Hyundai Getz car bearing Registration No. MH 12 CR 6917, driven by respondent No.1, hit the scooter, as a result of which the appellant fell down and sustained fractures on both the legs, thereby suffering permanent disability to some extent. He filed claim for compensation against the respondents before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. The MACT, vide award dated May 05, 2009, granted him compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,35,227, under the following heads:
| Head | Amount (in Rs.) |
| Medical & Transport Expenses | 3,10,227 |
| Loss of Income | 1,00,000 |
| Mental & Physical agony | 30,000 |
| Removal of rod inserted in right leg | 25,000 |
| Permanent disability to some extent | 70,000 |
| TOTAL | 5,35,227 |
3. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant approached the High Court by way of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act'). The High Court has, vide impugned judgment, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,35,000. The High Court has not awarded compensation under different heads but has deemed it proper to award lump sum compensation in the aforesaid amount. Relevant discussion in this behalf can be traced to paras 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:
"(8) We have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant on the issue of injury sustained by him. In our opinion, taking into consideration the nature of injury, the permanent disability occurred on the body of the appellant (claimant) to some extent, as a result of which he claims to be not as fit as he was prior to accident in his day-to-day work, resulting in reducing his capacity to do some extent of work, the expenditure incurred in receiving medical treatment in actual, the loss and mental pain suffered due to his involvement in accident we consider it proper to enhance in lump sum the compensation from Rs. 5,35,227/- to Rs. 6,35,000/-. In other words, in our view, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 6,35,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by him.
(9) In our considered opinion, due to injuries in both legs which is also duly proved in evidence by the claimant and his doctor, he cannot freely move and attend to his duties. His movements are restricted to a large extent and that too in young age. It is for all these reasons, we feel that the Tribunal had awarded a less compensation under this head and hence, some enhancement under the head of pain and suffering and also under the head of permanent partial disability and loss of earning capacity is called for. This enhancement figure is arrived at taking into consideration all relevant factors."
4. The appellant is not satisfied with the aforesaid approach and the manner in which the compensation is awarded. According to him, had the Court applied proper provision and principles laid down under the Act, the appellant would have been entitled to much more compensation.
5. We may state, at the outset, that the MACT recorded a specific finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of car by respondent No.1 which hit the scooter of the appellant. Respondent No.1 did not challenge the finding of the MACT and, therefore, this aspect has attained finality and we need not go into the same. The dispute, therefore, pertains only to the quantum of the compensation that has to be awarded. Few facts relevant for resolving the dispute, which appear on the record, are as under:
6. At the time of the accident, the appellant was aged about 30 years. He was working as a Chartered Accountant. The appellant had produced evi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
