2025 INSC 191
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
SANJAY KAROL, J. AND HON’BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.)
NUR AHAMAD ABDULSAB
KANAVI
Petitioner
VERSUS
ABDUL MUNAF & ORS.
Respondent
Civil
Appeal No. 2322 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.21766 of 2024)-Decided on
11-02-2025
Compensation,
MACT
Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, Section 166 – MACT – Injury case – Permanent disability – Income
- Claimant-appellant aged 27 years –
Claimant-appellant claimed that he was working as a Goundy and earning more
than Rs.10,000/- per month before the accident and was the sole breadwinner of
his family and after the incident, due to mental and physical suffering, he is
not in a position to do any work - Tribunal considered the monthly income of
the Claimant-Appellant to be Rs.7,500/- per month – Held that in the absence of
any material to discard the oral evidence of PW1 Wife, we deem it appropriate
to fix the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant as Rs.10,000/- - High Court
enhanced the percentage of disability suffered to 100% from 20% and the same
upheld – Taking monthly income of the claimant-appellant at Rs. 10,000/-
compensation as awarded by the High Court enhance from Rs.25,68,938/- to Rs.37,51,000/-
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realisation.
(Para
8 to 11)
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 |
2
years 6 months |
5
months |
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2023
in MFA No.100308/2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench,
which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th December,
2020 passed in MVC No.111/2015 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,
Hangal.
3.
The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 24 th June, 2014, the driver
of the offending goods vehicle bearing No.KA-16/A-6260, while driving rashly
and negligently, dashed into the Claimant-Appellant, aged 27 years, who was
travelling on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-02/EC-3487 from Kashambi village.
Upon collision, the Claimant-Appellant sustained injuries and, as such, was
taken to SDM Hospital, Dharwad, where he was treated and remained admitted for
two months completely bedridden.
4.
The Claimant-Appellant filed an application for compensation under
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.30,00,000/- with cost and interest @18% per annum from the date of accident
till realisation, submitting therein that he was working as a Goundy and
earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month before the accident and was the sole
breadwinner of his family. After the incident, due to mental and physical
suffering, he is not in a position to do any work.
5.
The Tribunal, by its judgment and order, directed the Insurance Company to pay
an amount of Rs.6,78,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal considered the monthly
income of the Claimant-Appellant to be Rs.7,500/- per month and the permanent
disability to be 20%.
6.
Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the Claimant-Appellant
filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the disability has
been incorrectly assessed at 20% by the Tribunal, while the Appellant has
actually suffered 100% functional disability. Furthermore, his monthly income
should have been taken as Rs.10,000/-.
7.
The High Court, vide the impugned order, enhanced the amount awarded to the
Claimant-Appellant with an additional sum of Rs.18,90,938/-. The High Court enhanced
the percentage of disability suffered to 100%, and as such, the compensation
awarded by the High Court was as under:
CALCULATION
OF COMPENSATION
|
Monthly
Income |
Rs.7,500/- |
|
Yearly
Income |
7500
X 12 = Rs.9,00,000/- |
|
Future
Prospects (40%) |
Rs.10,500/-
per month |
|
Multiplier
(17) |
84,000
X 17 = Rs.14,28,000/- |
|
Permanent
Disability (100%) |
Rs.21,42,000/- |
|
Special
Diet |
Rs.50,000/- |
|
Loss
of Amenities |
Rs.30,000/- |
|
Loss
of Income during treatment |
Rs.45,000/- |
|
Medical
Expenses |
Rs.1,96,938/- |
|
Pain
and Suffering |
Rs.75,000/- |
|
Total
|
Rs.25,68,938/- |
8.
Yet dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. He submits that his
salary ought to have been taken as Rs.10,000/- per month.
9.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are unable to agree with
the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the Appellant.
This Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav[(2022) 1 SCC 198] had placed reliance on the statement of the
deceased’s wife therein to establish the income of the person. Similarly, in
the absence of any material to discard the oral evidence of PW1 Wife, we deem
it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant as
Rs.10,000/-.
10.
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.10,000/- |
National
Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi(2017)
16 SCC 680 Para
42 & 59 |
|
Yearly
Income |
10000
X 12 =Rs.1,20,000/- |
|
|
Future
Prospects (40%) |
1,20,000
+ 48,000 = Rs.1,68,000/- |
|
|
Multiplier
(17) |
1,68,000
X 13 =Rs.28,56,000/- |
|
|
Permanent
Disability (100%) |
28,56,000
X 100% =Rs. 28,56,000/- |
|
|
Medical
Expenses |
Rs.2,00,000/- |
Kajal
v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 Para 19 and 25 |
|
Attendant
Charges |
10,000
x 17 = Rs.1,70,000/- |
|
|
Special
Diet & Transportation |
Rs.50,000/- |
Sidram
v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023)
3 SCC 439 Para 89 |
|
Pain
and Suffering |
Rs.4,00,000/- |
K.S.
Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi &Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14 |
|
Loss
of Income during treatment |
Rs.45,000/- |
Raj
Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011)
1 SCC 343 Para 6 |
|
Loss
of Amenities |
Rs.30,000/- |
|
|
TOTAL |
Rs.37,51,000/- |
|
Thus,
the difference in compensation is as under:
|
MACT |
High
Court |
This
Court |
|
Rs.6,78,000/-
|
Rs.25,68,938/-
|
Rs.37,51,000/- |
11.
The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned award dated
4th December, 2020 passed in MVC No.111/2015 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge
and Addl. MACT, Hangal, as modified vide the impugned order, stands further
modified in terms of the above. Interest is to be paid as awarded by the
Tribunal.
Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
------