1. Motor accident claim — Grievous injuries resulting in paraplegia and permanent disability — Appeal for enhancement of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1169
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Sidram – Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8510 of 2022, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 19277 of 2018
Decided On : 16-11-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K.B, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nandini Pandey, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Shiva Swaroop, Adv. M/s. Nuli & Nuli, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K.B, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nandini Pandey, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Shiva Swaroop, Adv. M/s. Nuli & Nuli, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR
Important Points
Just compensation for motor accident victims with permanent disability must be broad-based, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. Courts must assess functional disability based on the victim's specific vocation and life circumstances, ensuring the award restores the victim's dignity and approximates their pre-accident position.
Subject
Motor Vehicle Accident - Compensation Claims
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Motor accident - The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 6,13,000/- to Rs. 9,26,800/- for grievous injuries sustained by the appellant resulting in 45% permanent disability. The High Court acknowledged the need for fair compensation based on the evidence presented, increasing notional income and losses appropriately. (Paras 9, 11, 12, 29)
(B) Principles of compensation - The court held that compensation should adequately reflect the victim's suffering, loss of earning capacity, and future prospects, while reinforcing that the process remains inherently subjective and should seek just compensation. (Paras 30, 31, 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant suffered severe injuries and paraplegia in a road accident on 18.07.2012, with compensation initially set at Rs. 6,13,000/- by the Tribunal. (Paras 3, 7)
Findings of Court:
The appellant is awarded Rs. 21,78,600/- based on different heads including pain, suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earnings, emphasizing a broader perspective in assessing damages. (Paras 112, 114)
Issues: The main issues were assessing the notional income, the extent of disability, compensation for pain, suffering, future medical expenses, and loss of amenities, as well as market value of marriage prospects considering the appellant's young age. (Paras 29, 90)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the assessment of damages must restore the claimant as closely as possible to their pre-accident status and take into account the lifelong impacts of disability on quality of life. (Paras 30, 34, 114)
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation increased.
(B) Principles of compensation - The court held that compensation should adequately reflect the victim's suffering, loss of earning capacity, and future prospects, while reinforcing that the process remains inherently subjective and should seek just compensation. (Paras 30, 31, 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant suffered severe injuries and paraplegia in a road accident on 18.07.2012, with compensation initially set at Rs. 6,13,000/- by the Tribunal. (Paras 3, 7)
Findings of Court:
The appellant is awarded Rs. 21,78,600/- based on different heads including pain, suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earnings, emphasizing a broader perspective in assessing damages. (Paras 112, 114)
Issues: The main issues were assessing the notional income, the extent of disability, compensation for pain, suffering, future medical expenses, and loss of amenities, as well as market value of marriage prospects considering the appellant's young age. (Paras 29, 90)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the assessment of damages must restore the claimant as closely as possible to their pre-accident status and take into account the lifelong impacts of disability on quality of life. (Paras 30, 34, 114)
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation increased.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claimant seeks enhancement based on functional disability, higher notional income, and future prospects — Insurer contends the existing award is just and based on medical evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
3. Compensation must be just and liberal — Functional disability depends on vocation — Future prospects apply to self-employed persons — Paraplegia necessitates attendant charges and higher non-pecuniary damages. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 67 , 69 , 73 , 88 , 93 , 94 , 106 , 113 )
4. Loss of earning capacity must be assessed based on the functional impact of disability on the specific vocation rather than mechanical application of physical disability percentages. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 47 )
5. Appeal allowed — Compensation enhanced under various pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads — Insurance company directed to pay the difference. (Para 112 , 114 , 115 )
6. Are self-employed individuals entitled to compensation for future prospects in motor accident injury cases?
Yes. The court held that future prospects should not be confined to permanent employees but extend to self-employed individuals, as their income typically increases over time to meet the rising cost of living. (Para 31 , 33 , 34 )
7. How should a court determine the loss of earning capacity when a claimant has a permanent physical disability?
The court must not mechanically apply the physical disability percentage. Instead, it must assess the functional disability—the actual impact of the injury on the claimant's specific vocation and ability to earn. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 47 )
8. Is documentary evidence mandatory to prove the income of a victim working in the unorganised sector?
No. Once it is proved that the victim was employed in some venture, the court can determine a just notional income even in the absence of documentary evidence. (Para 58 , 59 )
9. Under what circumstances can a claimant be awarded attendant charges in a motor accident claim?
Attendant charges are awarded as pecuniary damages when the nature of the injury, such as paraplegia, renders the victim unable to perform daily activities independently, requiring continuous care. (Para 73 , 74 )
10. What factors are considered when awarding non-pecuniary damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities?
Courts consider the victim's age, the severity of the deprivation, and the long-term impact on their future life, ensuring the award reflects the trauma and loss of dignity. (Para 93 , 94 , 113 )
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned final judgment and order dated 25th of April, 2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench) in Shri Sidram S/o Raju Bhosale vs. Shri Siddu Mahadev Bhosale and Another urging various legal grounds and contentions for further enhancement of compensation in the case of a motor accident involving the appellant-claimant herein whereby the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (for short ‘Tribunal’) by Rs. 3,13,800/- to a total of Rs. 9,26,800/-. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 6,13,000/- under the various heads along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation of payment.
3. The briefs facts of the case are given herein-under. The appellant-claimant suffered grievous injuries in a road accident that occurred on 18.07.2012, while he was walking on the left side of the Kulgod-Gokak road. While the claimant was near the Laxmeshwar crossing, a goods vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-23/9426, being driven in a rash and negligent manner banged into the appellant-claimant. The appellant-claimant was shifted to a hospital and was treated as an indoor patient from 18.07.2012 till 06.08.2012. On account of the accident, the appellant-claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45%. The appellant-claimant suffered from paraplegia due to the accident. The appellant-claimant was in the business of selling utensils in different villages of the district.
4. The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition before the First Additional Senior Civil Division Judge and MACT, Belgaum at Belgaum which was registered as the M.V.C. No. 1786 of 2012. Before the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant examined himself (PW-1) and also examined Dr. Anil B. Patil as PW-2 in respect of his claim and various other documents were taken on record as evidence.
5. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which, the appellant sustained injuries and was awarded pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the compensation as under:
| Towards pain and suffering | Rs. 40,000/- |
| Loss of earning during laid of period | Rs. 4,000/- |
| Loss of earning due to disability | Rs. 3,24,000/- |
| Towards Medical expenses | Rs. 1,50,000/- |
| Conveyance, special diet etc. | Rs. 20,000/- |
| Loss of amenities in life | Rs. 30,000/- |
| Towards marriage prospects | Rs. 20,000/- |
| Towards future medical expenses | Rs. 25,000/- |
| Total | Rs. 6,13,000/- |
6. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court praying for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have awarded enhanced compensation on the basis of the evidence adduced. The contentions of the appellant will be taken up in detail at a later stage.
7. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9,26,800/-. The High Court in its impugned order held:
“9. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs. 5,000/- which is on the lower sipe. The accident is of the year 2012 and the notional income of the claimant could be taken at Rs. 7,000/- per month considering the nature of business carried on by him.
10. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future earning as follows:
Rs. 7,000/- x 12 x 18 x 40% = Rs. 6,04,800/-
11. The compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering, medical expenses, conveyance, special diet, etc. loss of amenities in life and marriage prospects is just and proper and same is not disturbed. The claimant who suffered grievous injury would have suffered loss of earning during the laid up. The compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering, medical expenses, conveyance, special diet, etc. lo
