2025 INSC 166
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
SANJAY KAROL, J. AND HON’BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.)
JITENDRA
Petitioner
VERSUS
SADIYA & ORS.
Respondent
Civil
Appeal No. 2209 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.575 of 2025)-Decided on
07-02-2025
Compensation,
MACT
Motor Vehicle Act,
1988, Section 166 – MACT – Injury case – Amputation of his right hand -Minimum
wage prevalent in the area for unskilled workers was Rs.6850/- - Inclined to
accept this submission of the Appellant that monthly income should be taken as
6850/- in place of Rs. 5,000/- - On the aspect of his functional disability,
due to the amputation of his right hand, his ability to work as a labourer would
be significantly hampered - Therefore, in the interest of justice, deem it
appropriate to increase the percentage of functional disability to 80% in place
of permanent disability taken as 20% and 40% by Tribunal and High Court
respectively – Held that the compensation now payable to the Claimant-
Appellant is itemised as under:
FINAL
COMPENSATION
|
Compensation
Heads |
Amount
Awarded |
In
Accordance with: |
|
Monthly
Income |
Rs.6,850/- |
National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017)
16 SCC 680 Para 42 & 59 |
|
Yearly
Income |
6850
x 12 = Rs.82,200/- |
|
|
Future
Prospects (40%) |
Future
Prospects (40%) |
|
|
Multiplier
(17) |
1,15,080
x 17 = Rs.20,71,440/- |
|
|
Permanent
Disability (80%) |
Rs.16,57,152/- |
|
|
Medical
Expenses |
Rs.10,000/- |
Kajal
v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 Para
19 and 25 |
|
Attendant
Charges |
6850
x 17 = Rs.1,16,450/- |
|
|
Special
Diet & Transportation |
Rs.40,000/- |
Sidram
v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439 Para 89 |
|
Pain
and Suffering |
Rs.2,00,000/- |
K.S.
Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14 |
|
Loss
of Income during treatment |
Rs.6850/- |
Raj
Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 Para 6 |
|
Artificial
Hand |
Rs.25,000/- |
|
|
TOTAL |
Rs.20,55,452/- |
|
Thus,
the difference in compensation is as under:
|
MACT
|
High
Court |
This
Court |
|
Rs.3,76,090/-
|
Rs.6,61,690/-
|
Rs.20,55,452/- |
Impugned
Award passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, as modified in terms of the
impugned order, stands further modified to the above extent. Interest is to be
paid as awarded by the Tribunal.
(Para
10 to 13)
ORDER
|
Time
taken for disposal of the claim petition by MACT |
Time
taken for disposal of the appeal by the High Court |
Time
taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court |
|
5
years 8˝ months |
2
years |
12
months |
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21 st August, 2023
in Misc. Appeal No.1803 of 2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order dated 21 st June,
2021 passed in Claim Case No.1200314 of 2016 by the 4 th Additional Member,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore.
3.
The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 25 th September, 2016 at
8:45 p.m., the Claimant-Appellant, aged 25 years, was extracting soybean from
the thresher machine installed in the tractor of Respondent No.1. The
driver of the tractor, Respondent No.2, reversed the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner, due to which the Claimant-Appellant’s hand went into the
thresher machine and, thus, he suffered serious injuries on his hand, shoulder,
head, near the ear and other parts of the body. Subsequently, he was taken to
Sanyog Hospital in Indore, and upon treatment, his hand was amputated below the
elbow.
4.
In connection with this incident, on 4th October, 2016, an FIR was lodged
against the driver of the offending vehicle – Respondent No.2 at Police Station
Depalpur under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 287 of
the Indian Penal Code .
5.
The Claimant-Appellant filed an application for compensation under
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.20,00,000/-, submitting therein that he is the only earning member of his
family and due to the amputation, he is unable to carry out his daily routine.
He submitted that he was working as a labourer, earning Rs.9,000/- per month at
the time of the accident.
6.
The Tribunal, by its Judgment and Order, held that the insurance company was
liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,76,090/- along with interest @ 6% considering
20% permanent disability suffered by the Appellant and took the Appellant’s
income as Rs. 60,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income.
7.
Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the Claimant-
Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal
has incorrectly appreciated the following heads:
a. The permanent
disability suffered by the Appellant;
b. Future prospects,
and
c. Expenses incurred
during the treatment.
8.
The High Court, vide the impugned order, enhanced the amount awarded to
the
Claimant-Appellant with an additional sum of
Rs.2,85,600/- towards compensation totalling up to Rs.6,61,690/-. The High
Court enhanced the percentage of disability suffered to 40% and as such, the
compensation awarded by the High Court was as under:
CALCULATION
OF COMPENSATION
|
Monthly
Income |
5000
|
|
Yearly
Income |
5000
x 12 = 60,000/- |
|
Future
Prospects (40%) |
60,000
+ 24,000 = 84,000/- |
|
Multiplier
(17) |
84,000
x 17 = 14,28,000 |
|
Permanent
Disability (40%) |
14,28,000
x 40% = Rs. 5,71,200/- |
|
Loss
of Income during treatment |
5000 x 4 = 20,000 |
|
Medical
Expenses |
5490 |
|
Pain
and Suffering, |
Rs.
40,000/- |
|
Special
Diet, Attendant Charges & Conveyance Artificial Hand |
Rs.
25,000/- |
|
Total
|
Rs.
6,61,690/- |
9.
Yet dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. The significant
points of challenge are as follows:
a. As per the
certificate issued by PW2, he has suffered 60% permanent disability, leading to
100% functional disability as he is unable to undertake his occupation as a
labourer.
b. His income should
be ascertained more than Rs.5000/-, as the minimum wage itself was Rs.6,850/-
in 2016.
10.
We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. We are unable to agree
with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the
Appellant and the functional disability suffered by him. At the outset, we must
refer to the exposition of this Court in Gurpreet Kaur and Ors. v. United
India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.
[2022 SCC Online SC 1778], wherein it was stated the notifications under
the Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor in cases where there is
no evidence available to evaluate monthly income.
11.
Adverting to the facts at hand, the minimum wage prevalent in the area for unskilled
workers was Rs.6850/-, annexed as Annexure P1. In view of the above exposition
of this Court, we are inclined to accept this submission of the Appellant.
On
the aspect of his functional disability, this Court recognises that due to the
amputation of his right hand, his ability to work as a labourer would be
significantly hampered. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it
appropriate to increase the percentage of functional disability to 80%.
12.
As a result of the discussion above, the compensation now payable to the
Claimant- Appellant is itemised as under:
FINAL
COMPENSATION
|
Compensation
Heads |
Amount
Awarded |
In
Accordance with: |
|
Monthly
Income |
Rs.6,850/- |
National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017)
16 SCC 680 Para 42 & 59 |
|
Yearly
Income |
6850
x 12 = Rs.82,200/- |
|
|
Future
Prospects (40%) |
Future
Prospects (40%) |
|
|
Multiplier
(17) |
1,15,080
x 17 = Rs.20,71,440/- |
|
|
Permanent
Disability (80%) |
Rs.16,57,152/- |
|
|
Medical
Expenses |
Rs.10,000/- |
Kajal
v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 Para
19 and 25 |
|
Attendant
Charges |
6850
x 17 = Rs.1,16,450/- |
|
|
Special
Diet & Transportation |
Rs.40,000/- |
Sidram
v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439 Para 89 |
|
Pain
and Suffering |
Rs.2,00,000/- |
K.S.
Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14 |
|
Loss
of Income during treatment |
Rs.6850/- |
Raj
Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 Para 6 |
|
Artificial
Hand |
Rs.25,000/- |
|
|
TOTAL |
Rs.20,55,452/- |
|
Thus,
the difference in compensation is as under:
|
MACT
|
High
Court |
This
Court |
|
Rs.3,76,090/-
|
Rs.6,61,690/-
|
Rs.20,55,452/- |
13.
The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned Award dated
21st June, 2021 passed in Claim Case No.1200314 of 2016 by the 4 th Additional
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore as modified in terms of the
impugned order, stands further modified to the above extent. Interest is to be
paid as awarded by the Tribunal.
Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
------