NON-REPORTABLE

2025 INSC 29 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24205 of 2022)

ATUL TIWARI Appellant(s)……

VERSUS REGIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondent(s)…….

J U D G M E N T PRASANNA B. VARALE, J:-

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the common order dated 23.09.22 in Misc. Appeal no. 1969/2014 and Misc. Appeal no.2181/2021 whereby the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein (Misc.

Signature Not Verified Appeal no. 1969/2014) and had partially allowed the appeal Digitally signed by RAVI ARORA Date: 2025.01.06 Reason:

preferred by the petitioner herein (Misc. Appeal no.2181/2021).

3. The factual background is that on 3.10.2009 the petitioner herein was travelling to Panchmarhi with his friend on a motorcycle. They met with an accident with a truck which was being driven on the wrong side and in a negligent manner. The petitioner suffered various serious injuries including injuries to head, jaws, legs, knees, chest and ribs for which the petitioner was operated on three occasions. On account of his serious injuries, the petitioner was rendered 60% permanently disabled. Accordingly, the petitioner through his father and natural guardian filed an application for compensation u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter “MACT”), Bhopal Madhya Pradesh. The MACT vide its order dated 30.6.14 allowed the application and granted a compensation of Rs. 19,43,800/- to the petitioner along with interest at rate of 7% p.a from the date of application till the date of payment. The MACT has awarded compensation as shown in the table below:

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of MACT a cross appeal was preferred by petitioner herein claiming enhancement of compensation amount and by the respondent herein claiming reduction of the compensation amount. The High Court vide the impugned common order dismissed the appeal of the respondent and had partially allowed the appeal of the petitioner thereby granted an enhancement in the compensation for Loss of Income from Rs. 11,23,200/- to Rs. 27,21,600/-.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the High Court the petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

6. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that in light of Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr,1 the petitioner being a victim of serious injuries leading to permanent disability, he is entitled for compensation for future prospects at 50% against 40% as granted by the High Court. It is further submitted that the compensation due to the petitioner under the head of loss of income, by taking multiplier of 18 should be enhanced to Rs. 64,80,000/- against Rs. 27,21,600/- as granted by the High Court.

7. It is submitted that the MACT has mechanically deducted the petitioner’s loss of income at 60% basis the petitioner’s disability. He further submits that the petitioner’s case is of 100% functional disability and a total loss of income, thus, no deduction under this head is liable to be made.

8. It is submitted that the notional income adopted by the High Court was too less for a meritorious student such as petitioner and it deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per month against Rs. 15,000/- per month given the efflux of time and changed economic scenario.

1 (2022)8 SCR 403

9. It is submitted that MACT failed to award future medical expenses to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner’s father is a government servant who is reimbursed the medical expenses of those dependent on him. It further submitted that petitioner’s father’s retirement is due on 31.12.2023. Moreover, fairly large amounts of reimbursements to the tune of Rs. 4,85,418/- and one another of Rs. 74,306/- are still due to the petitioner’s father and have not been paid till date.

10. It is submitted