The Supreme Court of India disposed of the appeal filed by S. Mohammed Hakkim against the order of the Madras High Court which had reduced the compensation awarded in a motor accident case (!) . On 07.01.2017, the appellant, a 3rd year engineering student, was riding a motorcycle when the car ahead suddenly applied brakes, causing the appellant to crash into the car and fall, leading to the bus running over him and the subsequent amputation of his left leg (!) . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 91,62,066/- but reduced it to Rs. 73,29,653/- due to 20% contributory negligence on the appellant's part for not maintaining sufficient distance (!) . The Madras High Court further reduced the compensation to Rs. 58,53,447/- by reallocating liability: 40% to the car driver, 30% to the bus driver, and 30% to the appellant (!) . The Supreme Court held that while the appellant was negligent for not maintaining distance and riding without a license, the root cause of the accident was the sudden braking by the car driver without giving a warning signal, making the car driver liable to the extent of 50% (!) . The Court determined the final liability ratio as 50% for the car driver, 30% for the bus driver, and 20% for the appellant (!) . Regarding notional income, the Court rejected the claim for Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-, citing a precedent where a student's income was set at Rs. 10,000/-, but concluded that for an engineering student with a bright future, Rs. 20,000/- per month was appropriate under Article 142 of the Constitution (!) (!) (!) . The Court fixed the total compensation at Rs. 1,14,24,066/- comprising loss of income, attendant charges, pain and sufferings, loss of marital prospects, and other heads (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . After deducting 20% for contributory negligence, the final compensation payable to the appellant was fixed at Rs. 91,39,253/- along with 7.5% interest (!) . The liability for the compensation is to be borne by the car insurer (Respondent No. 3) to the extent of 50% and the bus insurer (Respondent No. 1) to the extent of 30% (!) . The Court ordered the payment of compensation to the appellant within four weeks from the date of the order (!) .

S. Mohammed Hakkim vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1124

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, ARAVIND KUMAR
S. Mohammed Hakkim – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Gokulakrisnan Sr, Adv. Mr. Nawaz Sherif, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar A, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mrs. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The Supreme Court of India disposed of the appeal filed by S. Mohammed Hakkim against the order of the Madras High Court which had reduced the compensation awarded in a motor accident case (!) .
On 07.01.2017, the appellant, a 3rd year engineering student, was riding a motorcycle when the car ahead suddenly applied brakes, causing the appellant to crash into the car and fall, leading to the bus running over him and the subsequent amputation of his left leg (!) .
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 91,62,066/- but reduced it to Rs. 73,29,653/- due to 20% contributory negligence on the appellant's part for not maintaining sufficient distance (!) .
The Madras High Court further reduced the compensation to Rs. 58,53,447/- by reallocating liability: 40% to the car driver, 30% to the bus driver, and 30% to the appellant (!) .
The Supreme Court held that while the appellant was negligent for not maintaining distance and riding without a license, the root cause of the accident was the sudden braking by the car driver without giving a warning signal, making the car driver liable to the extent of 50% (!) .
The Court determined the final liability ratio as 50% for the car driver, 30% for the bus driver, and 20% for the appellant (!) .
Regarding notional income, the Court rejected the claim for Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-, citing a precedent where a student's income was set at Rs. 10,000/-, but concluded that for an engineering student with a bright future, Rs. 20,000/- per month was appropriate under Article 142 of the Constitution (!) (!) (!) .
The Court fixed the total compensation at Rs. 1,14,24,066/- comprising loss of income, attendant charges, pain and sufferings, loss of marital prospects, and other heads (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
After deducting 20% for contributory negligence, the final compensation payable to the appellant was fixed at Rs. 91,39,253/- along with 7.5% interest (!) .
The liability for the compensation is to be borne by the car insurer (Respondent No. 3) to the extent of 50% and the bus insurer (Respondent No. 1) to the extent of 30% (!) .
The Court ordered the payment of compensation to the appellant within four weeks from the date of the order (!) .

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 11.11.2022, whereby the Madras High Court reduced the compensation awarded to the appellant in a motor accident case from Rs. 73,29,653/-to Rs.58,53,447/-.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(b) The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) seeking compensation of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- in which Tribunal calculated a compensation of Rs.91,62,066/-. However, since it was held that there was 20% contributory negligence on the part of the a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 1124

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, ARAVIND KUMARS. Mohammed Hakkim – AppellantVersusNational Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

Related Judgments

S. Mohammed Hakkim VS National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2025 6 Supreme 344

BASIL PHILIP S/o.philip VS MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 976

Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Chandran, S/o. Kurumban - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2240

RISHPAL KAUR Vs GURCHARAN SINGH - 2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1357

Raj Kumari VS Surendra Kumar - 2022 Supreme(All) 88

Ramar VS Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1802

Ranjanabai w/o. Vinod Sharma vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4151

Chandramani Nanda VS Sarat Chandra Swain - 2025 1 Supreme 754

Mohinder Kaur VS Hasmeet Singh - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 1545

KANDULA SARALA (DIED) AND 4 OTHERS vs K HARI KRISHNA KHAMMAM DIST AND ANR - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 2884

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, ARAVIND KUMAR
S. Mohammed Hakkim – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent