Supreme Court of India
ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKREversusPRATAP SON OF ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE & ANOTHER
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 738
- Decided
- 21 August 2018
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R F NARIMAN
Holding
Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be determined using the multiplier method to fully restore the aggrieved, and the award is enhanced to Rs 20,29,000 with 9% interest.
Summary
The appellant, a 29‑year‑old driver earning Rs 8,500 per month, was injured in a motor‑vehicle collision that left him with 75% permanent disability, causing loss of livelihood. He claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a lump‑sum of Rs 7,00,000, which the High Court enhanced to Rs 14,65,500 using the multiplier method. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that compensation must be calculated to fully restore the victim, applying the multiplier method and accounting for loss of future earnings, actual loss of income, medical expenses, attendance, special diet, loss of amenities and pain‑and‑suffering. The Court affirmed the appellant’s actual monthly salary of Rs 8,500, applied a multiplier of 17, and awarded a total of Rs 20,29,000 with 9% simple interest from the date of application. The appeal was allowed and the respondents were ordered to pay the enhanced compensation.
Issues considered
- The appropriate method for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act – lump‑sum versus multiplier method.
- How to assess loss of future earnings, actual loss of income, and other heads of compensation for a permanently disabled claimant.
- Whether the appellant’s monthly salary should be taken as Rs 8,500 or reduced to Rs 5,000 for compensation purposes.
- The rate of interest applicable to the compensation award.
- The entitlement to additional amounts for medical expenses, attendance, special diet, loss of amenities and pain‑and‑suffering.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 140, s. 173
Subjects
Motor accidentCompensationMultiplier methodPermanent disabilityLoss of future earningsPain and sufferingMotor Vehicles ActInterest rateMedical expensesLoss of amenities
Judgment
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 11 11
ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE A
v.
PRATAP SON OF ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE & ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 8420 of 2018)
AUGUST 21, 2018 B
[R. F. NARIMAN AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Motor accident – Leading to permanent disability to the
extent of 75% – Claim for compensation – Tribunal granted C
Rs.7,00,000/- as a lump-sum compensation with interest @ 7% per
annum – In first appeal, High Court held that for granting
compensation multiplier method should be used and thereby
enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.14,65,500/- with 9%
interest per annum – In appeal, held: The purpose of compensation
D
under the Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the
position prior to the accident – In the cases of accidents leading to
injuries and disablements, person must not only be compensated
for his physical injury, but also for non-pecuniary losses – The
compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.20,29,000/- with 9%
interest per annum from the date of application till the date of E
payment.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The purpose of compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to
the position prior to the accident. In cases of motor accidents F
leading to injuries and disablements, a person must not only be
compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary
losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is
entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, and
enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, G
but for the injuries. [Paras 5 and 6] [17-G-H]
Yadav Kumar v. The Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341 :
[2010] 10 SCR 746 – referred to.
H
11
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.
A 2. The Appellant was employed by witness No. 3 and was
driving his personal car from 01.08.2008 on a monthly salary of
Rs. 8,500/-. He also gave a certificate to that effect. The High
Court erroneously concluded that it would be just and appropriate
if the monthly income of the appellant is considered at Rs. 5,000/-
on the ground that the salary of Rs. 8500/- for a driver was on the
B
higher side. [Para 4.3] [17-D-E]
3. The Appellant’s income was Rs. 8,500/- per month. The
Appellant was 29 year at the time of the accident. The Multiplier
would be 17. Where the claimant suffers a Permanent Disability
as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss of
C future earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of the
Permanent Disability on his earning capacity. The effect of the
Permanent Disability on the earning capacity of the injured must
be considered; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in
terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in
D terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings suffered
by the claimant. Loss of future income is calculated to
Rs. 13,00,500/-. [Paras 7.1 and 7.2] [18-D, E-G; 19-A]
Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 ;
E Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343:
[2010] 13 SCR 179 – relied on.
4. The Appellant has claimed compensation for actual loss
of income at Rs. 1,50,000/-. This claim of the Appellant cannot
succeed. The grant of loss of future income compensates for any
F further period of time where income was lost. Actual loss of
income can only be awarded for the month in which the accident
took place. Therefore, one month’s salary being Rs. 8,500/- be
awarded for the month of October. [Para 7.3] [19-B]
5. The Appellant has claimed reimbursement of Medical
G Expenses at Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Tribunal recorded that the
Claimant had incurred total expenditure of Rs. 5,50,000/- till the
date of the judgment for medicines, hospital charges, doctor’s
fee, operation charges, travelling expenses and expense for
special diet and granted Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation based
on actual expenditure. Since the Appellant has claimed expenses
H
ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE v. PRATAP SON OF 13
ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE & ANR.
for special diet and attendance charges separately before this A
Court, therefore, it is appropriate to award Rs. 2,50,000/- as
claimed on account of recurring medical expenses. [Para 7.4]
[19-C-E]
6. The Appellant has claimed Rs. 90,000 for attendance and
conveyance charges. The High Court had granted Rs. 70,000/-. B
Keeping in consideration the injury suffered, the Appellant has
permanently lost the source of livelihood as his movement has
got severely restricted with permanent impairment of the right
side of his body. As he is permanently disabled for life, towards
the attendance and conveyance charges Rs. 90,000/- is granted
as claimed. [Para 7.5] [19-E-F] C
7. The Appellant made a claim for Rs.1,00,000/- for special
diet and nutrition. The High Court awarded Rs. 20,000/- on this
account. This amount seems to be meager to this Court given
inflationary trends, and increased costs of living. Therefore,
compensation for special diet and nutrition be enhanced to D
Rs. 80,000/-. [Para 7.6] [19-G; 20-B]
Puttamma and Ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Anr.
(2013) 15 SCC 45 : [2013] 16 SCR 831 – relied on.
8. The compensation for loss of amenities in future life is E
enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. [Para 7.7] [20-C]
9. In case of permanent disability to the extent of 75%, and
loss of livelihood of the sole bread winner of the family, it is not
only the victim, but also his kith and kin who face the trauma.
The Appellant has had steel rods and artificial material inserted F
into his body through surgery. His income earning capacity has
been reduced by 100%. In such circumstances, it is appropriate
to award the appellant Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the
life-long pain and suffering by him and his family. [Para 7.8]
[20-D]
G
10. The Appellant is entitled to payment of a total
compensation of Rs. 20,29,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty
Nine Thousand Only) along with Simple Interest at 9% p.a. from
the date of the application made before the Tribunal till the date
of payment from both the Respondents, who are jointly and
severally liable for the same. [Para 8] [21-A-B] H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference
[2010] 10 SCR 746 referred to Para 6
[2009] 5 SCR 1098 relied on Para 7.1
[2010] 13 SCR 179 relied on Para 7.2
B [2013] 16 SCR 831 relied on Para 7.6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8420
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No.1353
C
of 2015.
Devvrat, Aditya Kr. Dubey, Rizwan, Shekhar Prasad Gupta,
G. Balaji, Ms. Pooja, Ravi S. Jha, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The present Appeal by Special Leave has been filed against
the final judgment and order in F.A. No. 1353 of 2015 dated 25.01.2017
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench)
E in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are as
follows:
3.1. The Appellant herein is the Claimant, who was 29 year old at
F the time of the accident, and employed as a driver, drawing a
monthly salary of Rs. 8,500.
On 16.10.2009, at about 9:30 a.m. the Appellant and his wife
were travelling by motorcycle from Pune towards Tambewasi,
when a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. MH-14/AE 1108
G owned and driven by Respondent No. 1 collided with them.
The car was coming from the wrong side of the road, and
was trying to overtake a State Transport Bus, when it hit the
Appellant’s motor cycle.
The Appellant fell on the road and sustained multiple inju-
ries. The Appellant fractured his right thigh, right ankle, and
H
ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE v. PRATAP SON OF 15
ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE & ANR. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
right arm. He was admitted in various hospitals for A
treatment, and underwent several operations where steel rods
were inserted in his right thigh and right knee. Artificial
material was inserted in his right shoulder to facilitate
restricted movement. The injuries suffered by the Appellant
resulted in Permanent Disability to the extent of 75% for
B
which a Disability Certificate was submitted before the
MACT. Appellant also filed an Injury Certificate which
records the various injuries suffered by him.
3.2. With respect to the injuries sustained by the wife, a separate
Claim Petition was filed before the MACT. The present
Appeal pertains only to the claim for enhancement of C
compensation made by the Appellant.
3.3. The Appellant filed Claim Petition bearing M.A.C.P. No. 33
of 2014 before the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bhoom seeking compensation under various heads
amounting to Rs. 20,00,000 against Respondent No. 1 – the D
owner of the Maruti Car and Respondent No. 2 –Insurance
Company.
3.4. The MACT vide Order dt. 07.02.2015 partly allowed the
Claim Petition and granted Rs. 7,00,000 as a lump-sum
compensation payable jointly and severally by both the E
Respondents within one month along with Interest @ 7%
p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of the Claim
Petition till the date of realization.
The MACT erroneously made a departure from the
multiplier method, and granted a lump-sum amount as F
compensation. The Tribunal did not grant compensation
under various heads such as actual loss of income, future
loss of income, medical expenses, and compensation for
permanent disability sustained.
3.5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted G
by the MACT, and the method used for awarding
compensation, the present Appellant filed First Appeal u/S.
173 of the M.V. Act for enhancement of compensation,
before the High Court. The High Court vide its Judgment
dated 25.01.2017 partly allowed the Appeal by enhancing the
H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.
A compensation to Rs. 14,65,500 with 9% Interest p.a. from
the date of application, till realization. The High Court held
that lump-sum compensation cannot be awarded, and the
multiplier method must be followed. The compensation
awarded by the High Court was as follows:
B Claim Amount awarded
(in INR)
i. Loss of future income 10,20,000
(60,000 x 17)
C ii. Loss of actual income 5,500
iii. Pains and sufferings 1,00,000
iv. Medical expenses 2,00,000
D v. Attendance and conveyance charges 70,000
vi. Special diet and nutrition 20,000
vii. Loss of amenities in future life 50,000
E TOTAL 14,65,500
3.6. The Appellant has challenged the judgment of the High Court
by way of the present Appeal by Special Leave Petition.
4. We have heard counsel for both parties, and carefully perused
F the record filed before the Court.
The undisputed facts of the present case are:
4.1. Both the Courts below have found from the evidence, that
the Respondent was driving his car rashly and negligently.
G 4.2. The Appellant, who was a young 29 year old on the date of
the accident, has suffered serious injuries which have caused
Permanent Disability to the extent of 75%. The Appellant
produced his Orthopedic Doctor who corroborated that the
Appellant was hospitalized from 25.10.2010 to 09.11.2010,
and again from 25.11.2010 to 05.12.2010. The Appellant had
H
ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE v. PRATAP SON OF 17
ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE & ANR. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
sustained multiple injuries which resulted in Permanent A
Disability to the extent of 75% which is evidenced from the
Disability Certificate issued by his Doctor. On account of the
Permanent Disability, the Appellant is not able to drive any
motor vehicle.
4.3. As a consequence of the accident, the Appellant lost his B
employment as a driver, and his livelihood. Before the
accident, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 8,500. In
order to prove his income, the Appellant produced his
employer Mr. Neeraj Rajendra Tiwari before the High Court
as Witness No. 3.
C
Mr. Neeraj Tiwari deposed that he was working as a
General Manager in Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. from June,
2008, and was the head of the Engine Department. He
further deposed that the Appellant was employed by him, and
was driving his personal car from 01.08.2008 on a monthly
salary of Rs. 8,500. He also gave a certificate to that effect. D
The High Court erroneously concluded that it would be
just and appropriate if the monthly income of the Appellant is
considered at Rs. 5,000 on the ground that the salary of
Rs. 8500 for a driver was on the higher side.
E
We do not agree with the reasoning given by the High
Court for not accepting the income of the Appellant. The
income of the Appellant must be taken as Rs. 8500 per month.
4.4.The Appellant submitted that even though his permanent
disablement is 75%, his ability to earn his income was F
reduced by 100%, as he is not able to move or do any work.
5. In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and
disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be
compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses
which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be
G
compensated for his inability to lead a full life, and enjoy those things and
amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries.
6. The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is
to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the
accident.
H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.
A This Court in Yadav Kumar v. The Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Ltd. 1 explained “ just compensation” in the
following words:
“It goes without saying that in matters of determination of
compensation both the Tribunal and the Court are statutorily
B charged with a responsibility of fixing a ‘just compensation’. It is
obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot
be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of ‘just
compensation’ obviously suggests application of fair and equitable
principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the Tribunals
and Courts. This reasonableness on the part of the Tribunal and
C Court must be on a large peripheral field.”
7. The Appellant would be entitled to compensation as follows:
7.1. The Appellant’s income was Rs. 8,500 per month. The
Appellant was 29 year at the time of the accident. The
Multiplier laid down in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi
D Transport Corporation and Ors.2 would be 17.
7.2. Loss of future income must be calculated in terms of the
judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar3 wherein
the Court held that where the claimant suffers a Permanent
Disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of
E compensation for loss of future earnings would depend upon
the impact and effect of the Permanent Disability on his
earning capacity. The effect of the Permanent Disability on
the earning capacity of the injured must be considered; and
after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
F percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of
money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings suffered by the
claimant. Hence, the compensation to be awarded is
calculated as follows:
i. Minimum annual income of Appellant = 8,500 x 12 =
Rs. 1,02,000
G
ii. Loss of future income at the level of his disability
(i.e. 75%) = 75% of 1,02,000 = Rs. 76,500 p.a.
1
( 2010 ) 10 SCC 341
2
(2009) 6 SCC 121
H 3
(2011) 1 SCC 343
ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE v. PRATAP SON OF 19
ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE & ANR. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
iii. Multiplier applicable (29 years) = 17 A
iv. Loss of future earnings = 76,500 x 17 = Rs. 13,00,500
7.3. The Appellant has claimed compensation for actual loss of
income at Rs. 1,50,000. This claim of the Appellant cannot
succeed. The grant of loss of future income compensates for
any further period of time where income was lost. Actual B
loss of income can only be awarded for the month in which
the accident took place. Therefore, one month’s salary being
Rs. 8,500 be awarded for the month of October.
7.4. The Appellant has claimed reimbursement of Medical
Expenses at Rs. 2,50,000. C
The MACT in para 4 of the judgment recorded that the
Claimant had incurred total expenditure of Rs. 5,50,000 till
the date of the judgment for medicines, hospital charges,
doctor’s fee, operation charges, travelling expenses and
expense for special diet and granted Rs. 2,00,000 as D
compensation based on actual expenditure.
Since the Appellant has claimed expenses for special diet
and attendance charges separately before this Court, we find
it appropriate to award Rs. 2,50,000 as claimed by him on
account of recurring medical expenses. E
7.5. The Appellant has claimed Rs. 90,000 for attendance and
conveyance charges. The High Court had granted Rs. 70,000.
Keeping in consideration the injury suffered, the Appellant
has permanently lost the source of livelihood as his
movement has got severely restricted with permanent F
impairment of the right side of his body. As he is permanently
disabled for life, towards the attendance and conveyance
charges we grant to the Appellant Rs. 90,000 as claimed.
7.6. The Appellant made a claim for Rs.1,00,000 for special diet
and nutrition. The High Court awarded Rs. 20,000 on this G
account. This amount seems to be meager to this Court given
inflationary trends, and increased costs of living.
H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.
A In Puttamma and Ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Anr. 4 this
Court has stated:
“... we hold that the Second Schedule as was enacted in 1994 has
now become redundant, irrational and unworkable due to changed
scenario including the present cost of living and current rate of
B inflation and increased life expectancy.”
In view of the said principle, compensation for special diet and
nutrition be enhanced to Rs. 80,000.
7.7. The compensation for loss of amenities in future life is
enhanced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000.
C 7.8. The Appellant has further claimed compensation for pain and
suffering at Rs. 2,00,000. The High Court awarded the
Appellant Rs. 1,00,000 on this count. In case of permanent
disability to the extent of 75%, and loss of livelihood of the
sole bread winner of the family, it is not only the victim, but
also his kith and kin who face the trauma. The Appellant has
D had steel rods and artificial material inserted into his body
through surgery. His income earning capacity has been
reduced by 100%.
In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to award the
Appellant Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for the life-long pain and
E s uffering by him and his family.
8. The total compensation awarded above is set out hereinbelow:
Amo unt awarded
Compensa tion
(in INR)
i)Loss o f future income 13 ,00,500
F 8,5 00
ii)Loss of actual income
2,5 0,000
iii)M edical expenses
90,000
iv)Atten dan ce and conv eyance charges
80,000
v )Special d iet an d n utrition
1,0 0,000
G v i)Loss of ameni ti es i n future life
2,0 0,000
v ii)P ain and s uffering
20,29,000
Total
4
(2013) 15 SCC 45
H
ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE v. PRATAP SON OF 21
ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE & ANR. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
The Appellant is entitled to payment of a total compensation of A
Rs. 20,29,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Only)
along with Simple Interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the application
made before the MACT on 11.10.2010 till the date of payment from
both the Respondents, who are jointly and severally liable for the same.
The amount be paid to the Appellant within twelve weeks from the date
B
of this judgment.
9. Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Pending applications if any are accordingly disposed of.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed. C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor accident"Sign in to search