1. Motor accident claim under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 — Injury and amputation due to negligent operation of tractor thresher — Claim for compensation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 287
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Jitendra – Appellant
Versus
Sadiya & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2209 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 575 of 2025)
Decided On : 07-02-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. N. K. Mody, Adv. Ms. Ishita M. Puranik, Adv. Mr. Prabuddha Singh Gaur, Adv. Mr. Jigish Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Karan, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. N. K. Mody, Adv. Ms. Ishita M. Puranik, Adv. Mr. Prabuddha Singh Gaur, Adv. Mr. Jigish Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Karan, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Injury in motor accident – Quantum of compensation must be adequate and in consonance with minimum wage prevalent in the area where is an unskilled labourer.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 168 and 173 – Injury in motor accident – Compensation of Rs.3,76,090/- along with 6% interest awarded by Tribunal – Quantum of compensation enhanced to Rs.6,61,690/- by High Court – High Court enhanced percentage of disability suffered to 40% – Claim for more compensation – Minimum wage prevalent in the area for unskilled workers was Rs.6850/- – On the aspect of his functional disability, due to amputation of his right hand, his ability to work as a labourer would be significantly hampered – In interest of justice, it is appropriate to increase percentage of functional disability to 80% – Amount of compensation enhanced to Rs.20,55,452/- – 6% interest to be paid as awarded by Tribunal. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Tribunal, by its Judgment and Order, held that insurance company was liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,76,090/- along with interest @ 6% considering 20% permanent disability suffered by the Appellant and took Appellant’s income as Rs. 60,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income. High Court, vide impugned order, enhanced amount awarded to Claimant-Appellant with an additional sum of Rs.2,85,600/- towards compensation totalling up to Rs.6,61,690/-. High Court enhanced percentage of disability suffered to 40%.
Findings of Court:
Impugned Award dated 21st June, 2021 passed in Claim Case No.1200314 of 2016 by 4th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore as modified in terms of impugned order, stands further modified.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over the determination of monthly income based on minimum wages and the assessment of permanent versus functional disability. (Para 7 , 9 )
3. Minimum wage notifications guide income evaluation absent evidence; amputation of a hand significantly hampers the ability to work as a labourer. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. Notifications under the Minimum Wages Act can be used to evaluate monthly income when no other evidence is available to determine earnings. (Para 10 )
5. Appeal allowed — Compensation amount enhanced based on revised monthly income and increased functional disability. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. How is monthly income determined when no evidence of actual earnings is available in motor accident claims?
Notifications under the Minimum Wages Act can be used as a guiding factor to evaluate the monthly income of the claimant in cases where no other evidence is available. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. How is functional disability assessed in the context of a claimant's occupation?
The court evaluates how a physical impairment specifically hampers the claimant's ability to perform their specific occupation, such as labor work, to determine the percentage of functional disability. (Para 11 )
ORDER :
| Time taken for disposal of the claim petition by MACT | Time taken for disposal of the appeal by the High Court | Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court |
| 5 years 8½ months | 2 years | 12 months |
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st August, 2023 in Misc. Appeal No.1803 of 2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order dated 21st June, 2021 passed in Claim Case No.1200314 of 2016 by the 4th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore.
3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 25th September, 2016 at 8:45 p.m., the Claimant-Appellant, aged 25 years, was extracting soybean from the thresher machine installed in the tractor of Respondent No.1. The driver of the tractor, Respondent No.2, reversed the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the Claimant-Appellant’s hand went into the thresher machine and, thus, he suffered serious injuries on his hand, shoulder, head, near the ear and other parts of the body. Subsequently, he was taken to Sanyog Hospital in Indore, and upon treatment, his hand was amputated below the elbow.
4. In connection with this incident, on 4th October, 2016, an FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle – Respondent No.2 at Police Station Depalpur under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 287 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The Claimant-Appellant filed an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, submitting therein that he is the only earning member of his family and due to the amputation, he is unable to carry out his daily routine. He submitted that he was working as a labourer, earning Rs.9,000/- per month at the time of the accident.
6. The Tribunal, by its Judgment and Order, held that the insurance company was liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,76,090/- along with interest @ 6% considering 20% permanent disability suffered by the Appellant and took the Appellant’s income as Rs. 60,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income.
7. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the Claimant- Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal has incorrectly appreciated the following heads:
a. The permanent disability suffered by the Appellant;
b. Future prospects, and
c. Expenses incurred during the treatment.
8. The High Court, vide the impugned order, enhanced the amount awarded to the Claimant-Appellant with an additional sum of Rs.2,85,600/- towards compensation totalling up to Rs.6,61,690/-. The High Court enhanced the percentage of disability suffered to 40% and as such, the compensation awarded by the High Court was as under:
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
| Monthly Income | 5000 |
| Yearly Income | 5000 x 12 = 60,000/- |
| Future Prospects (40%) | 60,000 + 24,000 = 84,000/- |
| Multiplier (17) | 84,000 x 17 = 14,28,000 |
| Permanent Disability (40%) | 14,28,000 x 40% = Rs. 5,71,200/- |
| Loss of Income during treatment | 5000 x 4 = 20,000 |
| Medical Expenses | 5490 |
| Pain and Suffering, Special Diet, Attendant Charges & Conveyance | Rs. 40,000/- |
| Artificial Hand | Rs. 25,000/- |
| Total | Rs. 6,61,690/- |
9. Yet dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. The significant points of challenge are as follows:
a. As per the certificate issued by PW2, he has suffered 60% permanent disability, leading to 100% functional disability as he is unable to undertake his occupation as a labourer.
b. His income should be ascertained more than Rs.5000/-, as the minimum wage itself was Rs.6,850/- in 2016.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the Appellant and the functional disability
