1. Motor accident claim — Grievous injuries resulting in amputation and paralysis — Dispute over compensation for loss of income and attendant charges. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1802
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Ramar – Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12580 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7840 of 2020)
Decided On : 26-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Adv. Ms. Pariksha, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Adv. Ms. Pariksha, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR
Compensation assessment must reflect actual income loss and adequate support needs, with substantial reasoning for adjustments to initial awards.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation for injuries - Court addressed the computation of monthly income and attendant charges after the High Court modified the Tribunal's award from Rs.31,80,350/- to Rs.20,65,000/- - The petitioner suffered grievous injuries, including a 100% disability due to amputation and paralysis (Para 3) - The Tribunal justifiably assessed income at Rs.11,000/- per month, while the High Court reduced it to Rs.6,500/- without adequate reasoning (Paras 4 and 5) - Still, future prospects were denied, limiting the claimant's appeal (Para 6) - Attendant charges were insufficiently computed by both courts, prompting a revised figure of Rs.3,00,000/- for adequate care (Para 7) - Total modified compensation awarded is Rs.24,86,500/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of application (Para 10).
(B) Issues of assessment - Court emphasized that modifications of previous amounts by High Court must reflect reasoned determination regarding lost earnings and necessary support (Paras 5 and 8).
(C)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute regarding the determination of monthly income for a loading worker and the quantum of attendant charges for permanent disability. (Para 2 , 4 , 7 )
3. Monthly income should be based on evidence of actual earnings rather than generic precedents; attendant charges must be reasonable based on the nature of disability. (Para 5 , 7 )
4. Actual income evidence prevails over generic benchmarks; claimants cannot seek enhancement of benefits denied by the Tribunal in an appeal filed by the respondent. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal partly allowed — Monthly income restored to Tribunal's assessment and attendant charges modified. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. How is monthly income determined when evidence of earnings is available?
When evidence of actual earnings, such as testimony from employers or co-workers, is provided, the court relies on that evidence rather than adopting generic income figures from precedents involving different circumstances or time periods. (Para 5 )
7. Can a claimant seek enhancement of compensation in an appeal filed by the insurance company if the Tribunal had originally denied it?
No. If the claimant did not appeal the Tribunal's original denial of a specific head of compensation, they cannot seek that enhancement in a subsequent appeal filed by the insurance company against the Tribunal's order. (Para 6 )
8. How are attendant charges determined for a person with permanent lower limb disability?
Attendant charges are not necessarily computed based on minimum wages for a regular attendant over the multiplier period, but should be a reasonable amount reflecting the actual needs resulting from the loss of use of limbs. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The above appeal is filed from the order of the High Court, which modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and reduced it from Rs.31,80,350/- to Rs.20,65,000/-. Notice was issued only on the issue of computation of the monthly income and attendant charges.
3. The accident occurred on 05.01.2013, while the petitioner was standing by the side of the road when a lorry driven rashly and negligently hit the petitioner. Suffice, it to notice that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and his right leg was amputated from the thigh and his left leg was crushed, paralyzing it. A functional disability of 100% was assessed by the Doctor who was examined before the Tribunal. PW4, the Doctor who treated the claimant was examined, which oral evidence coupled with the hospital records produced as Ex. P1, P5 and X7 proved the amputation of the right leg and the crush injury caused to the left leg, beyond doubt. PW5 was the Doctor who deposed on the 100% disability caused by the amputation of the right leg and the paralysis caused to the left leg.
4. The Tribunal took the income of the petitioner at Rs.11,000/- per month and awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,16,000/-, applying the multiplier of 13. The High Court, however, reduced the same to Rs.6,500/- finding that in a similar circumstance in Syed Sadiq Etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited , (2014) 2 SCC 735 this Court had adopted such income alone. Addition of 25% in accordance with National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 was also granted, thus determining compensation for loss of income at Rs.14, 62,500/-.
5. One of the issues on which notice was issued was the determination of monthly income. We notice that Syed Sadiq, (supra) was a case in which there was no evidence led regarding the income, in which circumstance this Court had adopted an income of Rs.6,500/- for a vegetable vendor that too in the year 2008. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2014 and the claimants’ contention was that the deceased was a loading and unloading worker engaged by PW6, who testified that the petitioner would earn between Rs.600 to 1000/- per day. PW7 was a person working along with him as a loading unloading worker, who also spoke in tandem with PW6. Even if we accept the maximum of the daily wages as spoken of by PW6, it is evident that the total monthly wages claimed is only for 15 days work, i.e., Rs.15,000/-. Considering the overall circumstances, we are of the opinion that the income adopted at Rs.11,000/- by the Tribunal is perfectly in order. The compensation for loss of future income and that for income during treatment period has to be retained as awarded by the Tribunal.
6. However, we have to notice that there is no appeal filed from the order of the Tribunal by the claimant, despite the fact that he had a claim for future prospects, which stood declined by the Tribunal. The High Court had while reducing the income considerably awarded future prospects at the rate of 25%. The further appeal now filed by the claimant is against the order of the High Court in the appeal by the Insurance Company. The appellant hence cannot claim any further enhancement than that granted by the Tribunal, nor seek for addition of future prospects.
7. The further contention is with respect to attendant charges, which the Tribunal had adopted on the basis of the minimum wages for an unskilled worker computed for 13 years; being the multiplier applied. The High Court had reduced it to Rs.1,50,000/-. We are of the opinion that neither the Tribunal was correct in computing the attendant charges on the basis of a regular attendant employed, nor had the High Court offered any reasoning in arriving at Rs.1,50,000/. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has lost use of his lower limbs, the attendant charges could be computed at Rs.3,00,000/-.
8. Details of modified compensation read as follows:
| Compen | |
