AABID KHANversusDINESH AND OTHERS

          [2024] 4 S.C.R. 264 : 2024 INSC 291

                        Aabid Khan
                             v.
                     Dinesh and Others
               (Civil Appeal No. 4828 of 2024)
                          09 April 2024
       [Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.]

                    Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to entitlement of the claimant for enhanced
compensation.

                           Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 – Compensation – Enhancement
– Road accident resulting in injuries to the claimant, a self-
employed mechanic with 30 years work experience – Doctors
report that claimant suffered whole body disability to the
extent of 17% – Tribunal computed the compensation towards
loss of future income as Rs.87,700/- with interest @ 7% p.a.
reducing the whole body disability at 10% on surmises and
conjectures – High Court enhanced the compensation awarded
to Rs.1,27,700/- with same interest – Correctness:
Held: Tribunal and the High Court committed a serious error in
not accepting the medical evidence tendered by the claimant
and in the absence of any contra evidence available on record,
neither the tribunal nor the High Court could have substituted the
disability to 10% as against the opinion of the doctor certified at
17% – Compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of income’
towards permanent disability to be enhanced by construing the
whole body disability at 17% – Compensation enhanced to Rs.
Rs. 2,42,120/- – Insurance Company to pay the balance amount
of compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. [Paras 10-14]

                        Case Law Cited
     Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another [2010] 13 SCR
     179 : (2011) 1 SCC 343; Laxman Alias Laxman Mourya
     v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
     and Another (2011) 10 SCC 756; Sidram v. Divisional
     Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another.
     [2022] 8 SCR 403 : (2023) 3 SCC 439 – referred to.
[2024] 4 S.C.R.                                                        265

                    Aabid Khan v. Dinesh and Others


                            List of Keywords
     Compensation; Whole body disability; Loss of future income; Loss
     of income’ towards permanent disability.

                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4828 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2019 of the High Court
     of M.P at Indore in MA No. 1614 of 2018
                        Appearances for Parties
     Nitin S. Tambwekar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Priyadarshi Kumar, Ms. Stuti Jha, Advs. for
     the Respondents.
                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment
     Aravind Kumar, J.
1.   Leave granted.
2.   We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and
     perused the records.
3.   Challenge is laid in this appeal to the order dated 21.01.2019
     passed in MA No.1614 of 2018 by the High Court of Madhya
     Pradesh, Bench at Indore whereunder the compensation awarded
     by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
     ‘tribunal’) by award dated 04.12.2017 in a sum of Rs.87,700/- with
     interest @ 7% p.a. came to be enhanced to Rs.1,27,700/- with same
     interest contending inter-alia that compensation so awarded by the
     High Court is on the lower side and same has to be enhanced.
4.   The occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the appellant/
     claimant in the road accident that took place on 23.04.2013,
     consequential disability sustained, issuance of insurance policy to the
     offending vehicle and policy being in force on the date of accident
     are all undisputed facts. Hence, we do not propose to dwell into
     those aspects.
5.   The only question that would arise for our consideration is:
266                                                         [2024] 4 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


            “Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement
            of compensation as urged? And if so, to what amount?”
6.     Perusal of the award passed by the tribunal as modified by the High
       Court, would reveal that claimant had sustained compound fracture
       in the left acetabulum and left rib. Dr. Alok Mehta (PW-5), who had
       examined the claimant had deposed that whole body disability suffered
       by the claimant was to the extent of 17% and this fact has been
       elicited in the cross-examination. However, the tribunal computed
       the compensation towards loss of future income by considering
       the whole body disability at 10%. On surmises and conjectures the
       percentage of disability has been reduced. No reason whatsoever
       has been assigned by the tribunal for substituting its opinion to that
       of the expert opinion namely, the doctor who treated the claimant
       and examined as PW-5.
7.     This Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another,
       (2011) 1 SCC 343 has observed:
            “16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when
            medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries
            and their effect, in particular, the extent of permanent
            disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident
            that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire
            as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of
            truth who is required to “hold an enquiry into the claim”
            for determining the “just compensation”. The Tribunal
            should therefore take an active role to ascertain the
            true and correct position so that it can assess the “just
            compensation”. While dealing with personal injury cases,
            the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a medical
            dictionary and a handbook for evaluation of permanent
            physical impairment (for example, Manual for Evaluation
            of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopaedic
            Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopaedic
            Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorised texts)
            for understanding the medical evidence and assessing
            the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may
            also keep in view the First Schedule to the Workmen’s
            Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication
            about the extent of permanent disability in different types
            of injuries, in the case of workmen.”
[2024] 4 S.C.R.                                                             267

                    Aabid Khan v. Dinesh and Others


8.   In the case of Laxman Alias Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager,
     Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 756, this
     Court observed:
           “15. The ratio of the above-noted judgments is that if the
           victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary
           disability, then efforts should always be made to award
           adequate compensation not only for the physical injury
           and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma
           caused due to the accident, loss of earning and the victim’s
           inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which
           he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due
           to the accident.”
9.   Further, in the matter of Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United
     India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another. [(2023) 3 SCC 439] it was
     observed by this Court:
           “113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined,
           as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts
           should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently
           imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often
           inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim.
           The attendant trauma of the victim’s having to live in a
           world entirely different from the one she or he is born into,
           as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others,
           robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should
           forever be in the judge’s mind, whenever tasked to adjudge
           compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such
           injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as
           an intrinsic component of the right to life Under Article 21)
           of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence
           of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived,
           hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is
           thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting
           and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts
           oblivious of these circumstances there is resultant affront to
           the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav (supra)]”
10. In the light of the afore-stated position of law explained when the
    medical evidence tendered by the claimant is perused, we are of
    the considered view that tribunal and the High Court committed a
268                                                        [2024] 4 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       serious error in not accepting the said medical evidence and in the
       absence of any contra evidence available on record, neither the
       tribunal nor the High Court could have substituted the disability to
       10% as against the opinion of the doctor (PW-5) certified at 17%.
       In that view of the matter the compensation awarded under the
       head ‘loss of income’ towards permanent disability deserves to be
       enhanced by construing the whole body disability at 17%.
11. The monthly income of the claimant has been construed as Rs.3,500/-
    which is on the lower side particularly in the background of the fact
    that the accident in question having occurred on 23.04.2013 and the
    evidence on record disclosing that claimant was self-employed as a
    mechanic and had work experience of over 30 years. Resultantly his
    income has to be construed at Rs.6,500/- per month in substitution
    to Rs.3,500/- computed by the Tribunal and the High Court. Thus,
    the claimant/appellant would be entitled for enhanced compensation
    of Rs.92,820/- (Rs.6,500 X 12 X 7 X 17%) towards loss of future
    income.
12. We are also of the considered view that compensation awarded by
    the Tribunal under the heads of Attendant charges, pain and suffering,
    transportation together in a sum of Rs.9,000 being abysmally on the
    lower side and same deserves to be enhanced and accordingly a
    lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under these
    three (3) heads.
13. In substitution to the award of Rs.1,27,700/- awarded by the High
    Court we enhance the compensation as under:

        Sr. No.                 Particular                    Amount

        1.        Loss of future income due to permanent   Rs.92,820/-
                  disability

        2.        Medical expenses                         Rs.49,300/-

        3.        −     Transportation,                    Rs.1,00,000/-
                  −     Attendant Charges,
                  −     Pain and Suffering

                                   Total                   Rs.2,42,120/-
[2024] 4 S.C.R.                                                    269

                    Aabid Khan v. Dinesh and Others


14. We direct the Respondent No.3-Insurance Company to pay the
    balance amount of compensation with interest @ 7% P.A. as awarded
    by the Tribunal by depositing the same before the jurisdictional
    tribunal within 6 weeks from the date of this order.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed as aforesaid with no order as
    to costs.


     Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain               Result of the case:
                                                        Appeal allowed.