Back
Holds Guinness World Record Relevant for in
In a landmark judgment on , a of the enhanced the awarded to the of a motorcycle rider, taking into account his achievement as a Guinness World Record holder for lifting a cement bag with his teeth. The court held that such extraordinary ability, recognized internationally, could be considered in assessing the deceased's income even in the absence of clear .
The bench, comprising Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra, partly allowed two appeals filed by the families of the rider and pillion rider who died in a truck-motorcycle collision on . The insurer of the truck had accepted , leaving only the to be determined.
Case Background
The accident occurred when a truck collided with a motorcycle, killing both the rider and the pillion rider. The of both victims filed separate before the . For the rider, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs. 12,500 based on his work as a contractor executing projects for the , and awarded Rs. 24,86,850. For the pillion rider, a government employee drawing Rs. 7,700 per month as a Field Assistant under the , the Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,66,500.
Dissatisfied with the awards, the of both victims appealed, seeking higher compensation.
Unique Fact: Guinness World Record Holder
During the appeal, the court discovered a remarkable fact about the deceased rider: he was a Guinness World Record holder for lifting a cement bag with his teeth. This achievement, recognized by international authorities, indicated extraordinary physical ability. The court noted that while there was of his contracts, the specific income was unclear. However, the Guinness record provided a basis for enhancing his .
Arguments Presented
The for the rider argued that the Tribunal had failed to adequately account for the deceased's unique skills and contract work, which justified a higher income. For the pillion rider, the contended that the Tribunal had not granted despite the deceased being a government servant. They also sought enhanced in line with precedents.
The , including the insurance company, did not contest but argued that the Tribunal's awards were fair and reasonable.
Court's Reasoning and Legal Analysis
The High Court relied on the principles laid down in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others
(2017) 16 SCC 680 and the recent dictum in
Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
(2026). The court emphasized that for the rider, his Guinness World Record was a valid factor in
.
"Even though there is no clear evidence of the income, given the fact that there are documents on record that he had executed several contracts, and keeping in mind the special recognition that was granted to him by the Guinness authorities, it would be appropriate to enhance the income to Rs. 13,500/- per month,"
the bench observed.
The court also applied 40% for the rider, as per Pranay Sethi , and 50% for the pillion rider, given his government employment. were enhanced to Rs. 1,56,000 for the rider (for three claimants) and Rs. 2,08,000 for the pillion rider (for four claimants), along with Rs. 19,500 each for and .
Key Observations
The court made a significant observation regarding the use of extraordinary achievements in :
"We have noticed from the record that apart from the contracts executed with Gandhidham, the deceased was also a Guinness World Record holder for being able to lift a cement bag with his teeth. This particular fact by itself indicates that the deceased had some extraordinary ability which was recognized by international authorities."
Court's Decision
The High Court enhanced the compensation for the rider's to Rs. 27,97,428 (an additional Rs. 3,10,576 over the Tribunal award) and for the pillion rider's heirs to Rs. 18,31,250 (an additional Rs. 3,64,750). Both amounts carry 9% interest per annum from the date of the . The insurance companies were directed to deposit the enhanced amounts within eight weeks and disburse them via NEFT/RTGS.
This judgment sets a notable for considering unique personal achievements, such as world records, as relevant factors in assessing income for compensation in motor accident claims.
