Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 490
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Madivalappa – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 12009 of 2024
Decided On : 17-03-2025
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Preetam Shah, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv. Mr. K. Krishna Kumar, AOR
The court established that the correct multiplier for future earnings is '18' and future prospects must be included in compensation calculations as per established legal precedents.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Appeal against compensation award - The High Court increased compensation from Rs. 2,60,200/- to Rs. 3,05,200/- based on the assessment of injuries and loss of future earnings - The appellant argued for a higher multiplier and inclusion of future prospects in compensation calculations. (Paras 1, 5, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Compensation Calculation - The court emphasized the application of the multiplier method for calculating future earnings and the inclusion of future prospects as per established precedents. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sustained grievous injuries in a vehicular accident on 11.07.2009 due to negligent driving, leading to a claim for compensation. The MACT awarded Rs. 2,60,200/-, which was contested by the appellant for enhancement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the MACT did not correctly apply the multiplier and failed to account for future prospects, leading to a revised compensation amount of Rs. 3,83,920/-.
Issues: The main issues included the appropriate multiplier for calculating future earnings and the inclusion of future prospects in compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the correct multiplier of '18' should be applied, and future prospects should be included as per the precedent set in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi cases.
Result: The Civil Appeal is disposed of, modifying the Impugned Judgment to reflect the revised compensation.
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, at Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 200540 of 2014 (MV) under Section 173(1)1 ["173. Appeals: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time"] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant-claimant against the Award dated 30.10.2013 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT’) in Motor Vehicle Case2 [Abbreviated to ‘MVC’] No. 366 of 2011 and increased the compensation from Rs. 2,60,200/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred), as awarded by the MACT, to Rs. 3,05,200/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Five Thousand Two Hundred).
BRIEF FACTS:
2. On 11.07.2009, in a vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being a Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (respondent herein) bus bearing Regn. No. MH12CH7027, the appellant, then aged 27 years sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
3. Appellant filed MVC No. 366/2011 before the MACT claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 23,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand). In support of the claim, the appellant produced various documents including medical records, hospital bills, the First Information Report, the Chargesheet, Disability Certificate etc. The respondent-corporation filed its Written Objections to the claim petition. After hearing the parties, the MACT, upon assessing age of the appellant-victim as 27 years and disability at 20%, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,60,200/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount awarded.
4. The MACT assessed and quantified the compensation in the following manner:
| Pain and Suffering | Rs. 10,000/- |
| Medical expense | Rs. 70,000/- |
| Attendant, Nourishment and Conveyance charges | Rs. 3,000/- |
| Loss of Earning during treatment period | Rs. 4,000/- |
| Loss of Future Earning (Multiplier 17) | Rs. 1,63,200/- |
| Loss of Amenities | Rs. 10,000/- |
| Total | Rs. 2,60,200/- |
5. Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation. Considering the gravity of the injuries, the High Court while allowing the appeal held that Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) can be added to the medical expenses and with respect to loss of income during the injury period, it can be increased from Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand). Therefore, the High Court increased the compensation from Rs. 2,60,200/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred) to Rs. 3,05,200/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Five Thousand Two Hundred).
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT:
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court by the Impugned Order did not enhance compensation under the head of ‘loss of future earning’ by using the multiplier of ‘18’ as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delh
