Supreme Court of India
HANUMANTHARAJU B (DEAD) BY LR.versusM AKRAM PASHA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 682
- Decided
- 13 May 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SURYA KANT
Holding
The Court held that the 78% disability assessment is proper, pension cannot be deducted, a 30% addition for future prospects is required, and the compensation must be enhanced to Rs. 67,36,084 with interest at 7% per annum.
Summary
The deceased Sub‑Inspector of the CRPF was injured in a road accident and claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded compensation based on a 61.94% disability assessed by a Medical Board, but on reconsideration a Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal assessed disability at 77.72% (rounded to 78%). The Tribunal, however, reduced the disability to 50% and the High Court further reduced the compensation by deducting the victim's pension from his salary and by applying a lower interest rate, while also omitting any award for future prospects. The Supreme Court held that the higher disability percentage must be accepted, pension cannot be deducted for loss‑of‑earning calculations, and a 30% addition for future prospects is required, directing that the compensation be enhanced to Rs. 67,36,084 with interest at 7% per annum. The appeals were allowed and the enhanced award was ordered to be paid by the insurer.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal should accept the 78% disability assessment made by the appointed Commissioner.
- Whether pension, provident fund or other statutory benefits may be deducted from the victim's salary for computing loss of earnings under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether compensation should include an amount for loss of future prospects.
- Whether the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal should be 9% or can be reduced by the High Court.
- Whether the overall compensation award should be enhanced.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether it would be just and proper, in the instant case, to accept 78% disability as assessed by the Tribunal appointed Commissioner; whether any amount receivable on account of PF, pension or insurance be deducted from the salary of the victim for the purpose or loss of earning for calculating compensation; whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation amount. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Accident Claim – Original appellant (who died during pendency of this appeal) met with an accident and
Subjects
Motor Accident ClaimMACTDeduction of pensionFuture prospectsRate of interestPhysical disability assessmentMedical BoardMethodology of computation of compensationpecuniary advantageComputing loss of income
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1023 : 2025 INSC 682
Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR.
v.
M Akram Pasha & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 6844-6845 of 2025)
13 May 2025
[Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether it would be just and proper, in the instant case, to
accept 78% disability as assessed by the Tribunal appointed
Commissioner; whether any amount receivable on account of PF,
pension or insurance be deducted from the salary of the victim
for the purpose of determining the income or loss of earning for
calculating compensation; whether the appellants are entitled for
enhancement of the compensation amount.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Accident Claim – Original
appellant (who died during pendency of this appeal) met with
an accident and sustained grievous injuries – Medical board
certified sufferings from physical disabilities at 61.94% –
Appellant filed Motor Accident Claim – The MACT awarded an
amount to the original appellant taking disability at 61.94% as
assessed by the Medical Board – The High Court remanded the
matter to the Tribunal with the direction to reconsider – MACT
appointed a Commissioner who testified disability at 77.72% –
The MACT held that it would be just and proper to take the
disability at 50% to meet the ends of justice – The MACT, after
reconsideration, awarded a total amount of Rs.31,64,896/- –
High Court reduced the compensation award by deducting
pension amount from salary and reducing the rate of interest –
Assessed disability at 61.94% – No amount awarded for loss of
future prospects – The High Court computed the compensation
amount of Rs.27,47,63.25/- – Correctness:
Held: It is well settled that the amount of compensation is to be
calculated on the basis of last drawn salary of the injured/deceased
in respect of salaried persons and pension and such retirement
benefits enjoyed cannot be deducted for computing the income,
these being statutory rights receivable by the employee or his legal
* Author
1024 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
heirs irrespective of any unforeseen incident of accidents, fatal
injuries etc. and such pensionary benefit is not directly relatable
to the motor accident – Hence, pensionary benefit could not have
been treated as “pecuniary advantage” liable to be deducted for
the purpose of computation of compensation within the scope of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – As far as future prospects is concerned,
in view of the dictum in Pranay Sethi, the original appellant would
be entitled to an addition of 30% of the income towards loss of
future prospects as the original appellant was 43 years when
he met with the accident – Coming to the issue of disability, it
may be apposite to recollect that while the Medical Board had
assessed the disability at 61.94%, the Commissioner appointed
by the Tribunal had assessed it to be 77.72% which was rounded
off to 78% – The Tribunal could not have doubted the correctness
of the assessment made by the Commissioner and could have
accepted the same, yet for a strange reason that there was no
material evidence to show that the original appellant was rendered
completely incapacitated or that he was doing any job after his
discharge from the services, the Tribunal reduced the disability
to 50% holding that it would meet the ends of justice – There is
no reason as to why the Tribunal did not accept the same to the
effect that the disability was 78% – Similarly, no reason has been
assigned by the High Court why it chose to accept the assessment
of 61.94% – It may be also noted that the subsequent assessment
was made during the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal
and the concerned Doctor/Commissioner who had treated the
original appellant made the assessment and had testified before
the Tribunal and cross examined by the Insurance Company and
his evidence had remained unshaken – Under the circumstances, it
would be just and proper to accept 78% disability – The appropriate
multiplier would be 14 as had been applied by the Tribunal and
the High Court – This Court is of the view that the compensation
awarded to the original appellant should be enhanced – Accordingly,
the an amount of Rs. 67,36,084/- is to be released in the favour
of the appellants at the rate of interest of 7% simple interest p.a.
[Paras 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29]
Case Law Cited
Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr. [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : 2009 6 SCC 121; National Insurance
Company v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC
680; Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1025
Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR. v. M Akram Pasha & Anr.
476; Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [1998] Supp. 1 SCR
684 : (1999) 1 SCC 90; Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Shashi Sharma & Ors. [2016] 6 SCR 488 : (2016) 9 SCC 627;
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender & Ors. [2020] 1 SCR
946 : (2020) 11 SCC 356 – referred to.
List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
List of Keywords
Motor Accident Claim; MACT; Deduction of pension; Future
prospects; Rate of interest; Physical disability assessment; Medical
Board; Methodology of computation of compensation; “Pecuniary
advantage”; Computing loss of income.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 6844-6845
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2019 of the High Court
of Karntaka at Bengaluru in MFA Nos. 3569 and 4867 of 2016
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Rahul Jain, Anirudh Bhat, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Ms. Hetu Arora
Sethi.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sandeep Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, Aman Nihal, Sanjay Kumar Singh,
Ms. Kumudini Priyadarshini, Binay Kumar Das.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeals have been preferred against the common
judgment and order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in MFA No.3569/2016 (MV-I) and MFA
1026 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
No.4867/2016 (MV-I) whereby, the appeals preferred against the
judgment and order dated 21.03.2016 passed in MVC No. 5024/2010
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru were partly allowed.
The insurance company being Respondent No.2, which filed the MFA
No.4867/2016 before the High Court of Karnataka, has not challenged
the order of the High Court in the aforesaid MFA No.4867/2016.
3. The facts of the case in brief as can be culled out from the records
are that on 10.05.2010, around 1:45 pm, the original appellant (who
died during the pendency of this appeal), who was working as a
Sub-Inspector (MIN) in the office of DIGP, CRPF, Yelahanka Base,
Bangalore, was driving his motor cycle to Yelahanka, on Doddaballapur
Main Road, Karnataka, when he met with an accident with an Omni
Car bearing registration KA-04/C-826 owned by the Respondent No.1
at J. Valsal Road, CRPF Campus. When the driver of the said car
took a turn towards the right side, the original appellant’s motorcycle
collided with the car and he fell down, sustaining grievous injuries.
On the same day, FIR No. 86/2010 was lodged against the driver of
the car u/s 279, 337 IPC at P.S. Yelahanka Tr. The medical record
indicates that the original appellant was admitted to the hospital on
three different occasions for nearly 15 days immediately after the
accident and he underwent surgery on his left leg. He also suffered
heart attack due to stress and injuries.
4. Considering the injuries he suffered, a Medical Board was constituted
at the Composite Hospital, Bengaluru to examine his physical
fitness which certified him to be suffering from physical disabilities at
61.94%. Because of the aforesaid physical disability, he was unable
to perform his duties properly and did not get due promotion and
was subsequently discharged from service on 22.03.2012.
5. Prior to his discharge, the original appellant filed Motor Accident
Claim MVC No. 5024/2010 on 05.08.2010 claiming compensation of
Rs. 74 Lakhs from the Respondents. The MACT, Bangalore awarded
an amount of Rs. 3,28,422/- to the original appellant along with 9%
interest per annum as compensation vide its order dated 31.01.2014,
taking into account his last drawn salary of Rs. 36,231/- at the time
of the accident as well as the disability at 61.94% as assessed by
the Medical Board.
6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the MACT, the original
appellant preferred an appeal being MFA No.3965/2014(MV)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1027
Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR. v. M Akram Pasha & Anr.
before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking enhancement of the
compensation. In that appeal, it was agreed by both the parties, i.e.
the original appellant and insurance company, that the matter would
require reconsideration by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Karnataka
High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
remanded the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to reconsider,
vide order dated 12.01.2015. Accordingly, the matter was again
placed before the MACT.
7. When the matter was placed for reconsideration before the MACT,
in terms of the direction of the High Court, the Tribunal appointed a
Commissioner, namely, Dr. Shankar R. Krupad, who had examined
the original appellant in Columbia Asia Referral Hospital where he
was initially treated, to give his opinion on the extent of disability
of the appellant. Dr. Shankar R. Krupad, who testified as CW1,
assessed the total disability of the original appellant at 77.72%.
Dr. CS Albal, the then Chief Medical Officer at Composite Hospital,
C.R.P.F., Yelahanka, Bengaluru was also examined as PW3, who, as
a member of the Medical Board, gave the opinion that the appellant
was suffering from total disability of 61.94%. Thus, two views on
disabilities were available before the Tribunal.
8. The MACT, in view of lack of material to show whether the original
appellant was wholly rendered incapacitated for any work or whether
he was doing any job post-retirement, instead of relying either on the
assessment made by the Medical Board (61.94% disability) or the
Tribunal appointed Commissioner (77.72%), held that it would be just
and proper to take the disability at 50% to meet the ends of justice.
9. The Tribunal also deducted income tax and professional tax from
the salary of Rs.36,231/-, thus, assessing the monthly income to
be Rs. 33,761/-.
The Tribunal then applied 50% disability to this figure and held
that the monthly loss of earning of the original appellant would be
Rs. 16,880/-, and Rs. 2,02,560/- annually. Thereafter, by applying
the multiplier of 14 to the aforementioned amount as the original
appellant was about 43 years, the Tribunal held that the original
appellant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.28,35,840/- under
the head of disability, which included the loss of income during the
period of treatment and loss of amenities in life.
1028 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10. As regards future medical expenses, though, CW1 had projected an
estimated cost for knee replacement surgery at Rs.2,75,000/-, the
Tribunal found the said amount to be on a higher side and fixed it
at Rs. 50,000/- as just and proper, even though the opinion of CW1
was not questioned before the Tribunal by any of the respondents
as observed by the Tribunal itself.
11. Thus, the MACT, after reconsideration, awarded a total amount of
Rs.31,64,896/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the
date of filing of the claims petition and after the determination of the
compensation under various heads as follows:
Sl. Head Amount
No. (Rs.)
1. Loss of income on account of disability 28,35,840/-
taken @ 50% (including loss of income
during the period of treatment and loss of
amenities in life (50% of Rs.33,761 X 12
X 14)
2. Injury, pain and suffering 50,000/-
3. Medical expenditure 2,14,056/-
4. Future Medical Expenses 50,000/-
5. Attendant, conveyance & misc. expenses 15,000/-
Total 31,64,896/-
12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award made by the MACT on
reconsideration, both the opposite parties preferred their respective
appeals before the High Court. The original appellant preferred
the appeal which was registered as M.F.A.No.3569/2016(MV-I)
and the appeal filed by the insurance company was registered as
M.F.A.No.4867/2016. Both the appeals were heard together and
disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 14.11.2019
by the High Court allowing the appeals partly, which is the subject
matter of challenge by the original appellant before this Court.
13. While partly allowing the said appeals, the High Court, reduced
the amount of compensation to Rs.27,47,634.25/- rounding off to
Rs.27,47,700/-, which is lower than the amount awarded by the
MACT, and the interest was awarded at 6% per annum. The original
appellant, thus aggrieved, has filed the instant SLP. The insurance
company has not challenged the order of the High Court.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1029
Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR. v. M Akram Pasha & Anr.
14. From a perusal of the impugned order of the High Court, it is evident
that there was no dispute that the original appellant was employed
as a Sub-Inspector in CRPF with monthly salary of Rs. 36,231/- and
due to the accident, he was on leave for about a year and a half.
Subsequently, on the basis of the finding of the Medical Board, the
original appellant was discharged from service on which he was
given the monthly pension of Rs.15,247/-. Since the original appellant
was drawing the monthly pension, to determine the monthly loss
of earning, the High Court deducted the said pension amount from
the salary. Thus, the High Court held that the effective monthly loss
of earnings of the claimant was Rs. 20,984/- i.e. by deducting the
pension amount from the salary.
15. The High Court, based on the opinion of the Medical Board which
assessed the disability of the original appellant at 61.94%, held
that the loss of his earning capacity was 61.94% and accordingly,
the same was calculated at Rs.1,55,969.87/- per annum. Since
the original appellant was about 43 years of age at the time of the
accident, the multiplier of 14 was applied and accordingly, the total
loss of earning was calculated as Rs.21,83,178.25/-.
The High Court, thereafter, added the amounts under various heads,
and computed the compensation amount at Rs.27,47,63.25/-, which
was less than what had been awarded by the MACT.
16. Before this Court, the original appellant has raised the following
grounds in challenging the order of the High Court:
(i) That the High Court has erroneously reduced the loss of earning
by deducting the pension amount from the salary.
(ii) Though the total permanent physical disability of appellant
was earlier assessed at 61.94% by the Medical Board, it was
subsequently revised to 77.8% by the Commissioner appointed
by the Tribunal, which ought to have been accepted by the
Tribunal and High Court.
(iii) The rate of interest of 9% p.a. which was awarded by the
Tribunal was reduced by the High Court to 6% p.a.
(iv) No amount was awarded in respect of loss of future prospects.
17. At this juncture, it may be apposite to examine the legal position
regarding the methodology of computation of compensation in
1030 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
motor accident claims. For computation of compensation arising
out of injury or death due to motor accidents, a certain amount of
uniformity and a consistency has been arrived at following a series
of decisions of this Court, as well as by amendments of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (“Act”).
As observed in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. 2009 6 SCC 121, there are certain factual
aspects which have to be ascertained for proper calculation of the
compensation. Firstly, the age of the deceased, secondly, the
income of the deceased, and, thereafter, ascertain the loss of earning
thirdly, selection of the proper multiplier to compute the loss and
fourthly, other accidental expenses like travelling/transportation etc.
18. The concept future prospects, though was considered in Sarla Verma
(supra), got firmly settled in the case of National Insurance
Company v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. Hence, this has to
be taken into consideration while computing the loss suffered by the
original appellant. In Pranay Sethi (supra)¸ it was held that while
determining the income, the addition of 50% of actual salary to the
income of the deceased towards future prospects, where deceased
had permanent jobs and was below the age of 40 years should be
made. This, however, would be reduced to 30% if the age of the
deceased was between 40 to 50 years and in case of the deceased
was between the age of 50 to 60 years the addition should be 15%.
However, in the present case, neither the MACT nor the High Court
took into account awarded any compensation on account of future
prospects.
19. It is also now well settled that the amount of compensation is to be
calculated on the basis of last drawn salary of the injured/deceased
in respect of salaried persons and pension and such retirement
benefits enjoyed cannot be deducted for computing the income,
these being statutory rights receivable by the employee or his legal
heirs irrespective of any unforeseen incident of accidents, fatal
injuries etc. and such pensionary benefit is not directly relatable
to the motor accident. Hence, pensionary benefit could not have
been treated as “pecuniary advantage” liable to be deducted for the
purpose of computation of compensation within the scope of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1031
Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR. v. M Akram Pasha & Anr.
For this proposition of law, we may refer to the decision in
Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 476,
wherein this Court, by referring to the earlier decision in Helen C.
Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (1999) 1 SCC 90, held as follows:-
“19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this
Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [(1999) 1
SCC 90: 1999 SCC (Cri) 197]. In the said case, this Court
held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly
any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are
all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on
account of one›s death but all these have no correlation
with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only
on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not
come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be
termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. The
following was the observation and finding of this Court:
(SCC pp. 111-12, para 35)
“35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the
provident fund which is a deferred payment out of
the contribution made by an employee during the
tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs
are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of
the accidental death. This amount is secured, is
certain to be received, while the amount under the
Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only
on the happening of the event viz. accident, which
may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension
is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his
family in the form of his contribution in the service
in terms of the service conditions receivable by the
heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension
even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-
relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance
policy is received either by the insured or the heirs
of the insured on account of the contract with the
insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form
of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if
he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In
the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the
1032 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for
the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable
by the claimant not on account of any accidental
death but otherwise on the insured’s death. Death is
only a step or contingency in terms of the contract,
to receive the amount. Similarly, any cash, bank
balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all
a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on
account of one’s death but all these have no co-
relation with the amount receivable under a statute
occasioned only on account of accidental death. How
could such an amount come within the periphery of
the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary
advantage’ liable for deduction. When we seek the
principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar
and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them
and not to which there is no semblance of any co-
relation. The insured (the deceased) contributes his
own money for which he receives the amount which
has no co-relation to the compensation computed as
against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account
of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable
as compensation under the Act is on account of
the injury or death without making any contribution
towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount
received through contributions of the insured be
deducted out of the amount receivable under the
Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he
receives without any contribution. As we have said,
the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles
Act is statutory while the amount receivable under
the life insurance policy is contractual.”
Thus, this Court has categorically held that any amount receivable
on account of PF, pension or insurance cannot be deducted from
the salary of the victim for the purpose of determining the income
or loss of earning for calculating compensation. This principle was
reiterated in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma
& Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 627 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Birender & Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 356.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1033
Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR. v. M Akram Pasha & Anr.
20. Keeping the aforesaid legal position in mind, we shall examine the
issues at hand.
21. As regards computing the loss of income, in the light of the above
referred decisions, it would not be permissible to deduct the
pensionary amount of Rs. 15,247/- from the salary of Rs. 36,231/- as
was done by the High Court. Hence, for the purpose of computing
the loss of earning, the said monthly salary of Rs. 36,231/- has to
be accepted without deducting the pension amount.
22. As far as future prospects is concerned, the same cannot be
denied in the teeth of the judgments in Sarla Verma (supra) and
Pranay Sethi (supra), wherein this Court had held that there should
be an addition of 30% of the salary where the age of the claimant
is within 40 to 50 years.
As can be seen from the Signal/SELO message dated 09.01.2012, the
original appellant was considered for promotion. However, because of
his discharge from the service on 22.03.2013, the promotion could not
fructify. In any event, in view of the dictum in Pranay Sethi (supra),
the original appellant would be entitled to an addition of 30% of the
income towards loss of future prospects as the original appellant
was 43 years when he met with the accident.
23. Coming to the issue of disability, it may be apposite to recollect that
while the Medical Board had assessed the disability at 61.94%,
the Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal had assessed it to be
77.72% which was rounded off to 78%. It is significant to note that
while considering the evidence of the Commissioner (CW1), the
Tribunal had noted that the Commissioner was cross-examined by
the Counsel for the Insurance Company and the Tribunal proceeded
to observe that nothing worth had been elicited to disbelieve or
discredit his evidence. Thus, the Tribunal could not have doubted
the correctness of the assessment made by the Commissioner and
could have accepted the same, yet for a strange reason that there
was no material evidence to show that the original appellant was
rendered completely incapacitated or that he was doing any job after
his discharge from the services, the Tribunal reduced the disability
to 50% holding that it would meet the ends of justice.
24. In spite of the credibility of the subsequent medical opinion given by
the Commissioner as regards the physical disability of the original
appellant not being challenged by the Insurance Company, nor
1034 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
being doubted by the Tribunal itself, we see no reason as to why
the Tribunal did not accept the same to the effect that the disability
was 78%. What we have also noted is that the High Court has
treated the physical disability of the original appellant at 61.94%,
which was the initial assessment made by the Medical Board, by
ignoring the assessment by the Tribunal appointed Commissioner,
correctness of which was not doubted even by the Tribunal. No
reason has been assigned by the High Court why it chose to accept
the assessment of 61.94% disability made by the Medical Board over
the subsequent assessment of 78% disability by the Commissioner.
It may be also noted that the subsequent assessment was made
during the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal and
the concerned Doctor/Commissioner who had treated the original
appellant made the assessment and had testified before the Tribunal
and cross examined by the Insurance Company and his evidence
had remained unshaken.
Under the circumstances, we are of the view that it would be just
and proper to accept 78% disability in the present case as assessed
by the Tribunal appointed Commissioner.
25. As far as the multiplier is concerned, since there is no dispute about
the age of the original appellant at the time of the accident, i.e.,
43 years, we are also of the view that the appropriate multiplier
would be 14 as had been applied by the Tribunal and the High Court.
26. We, thus, find merit in the submissions made by the appellants for
enhancement of the compensation amount.
In order to redetermine the quantum of compensation, the monthly
income of the deceased original appellant has to be ascertained by
not deducting the pension from the monthly income, consequently,
it is fixed at Rs. 36,231/- which is the salary.
Further, since the High Court had failed to award appropriate amount
towards future prospects, and as the original appellant lost his
promotional opportunities because of the accident and as he was
43 years, we deem it appropriate to add 30% of his annual income
to the income.
27. Since, there is no challenge to the compensation with reference to
other heads as determined by the High Court, we have not disturbed
the same except as regards monthly income, extent of disability,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1035
Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR. v. M Akram Pasha & Anr.
future prospects and rate of interest. Accordingly, we are of the view
that the compensation awarded to the original appellant should be
enhanced as per the computation mentioned below –
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
(i) Monthly Income
Salary Rs. 36,231/-
Annual Income
Rs. 36,231 x 12 Rs. 4,34,772/-
(ii) Add: Future Prospects @30% of his
annual income.
30% of Rs.4,34,772/- Rs. 1,30,432/-
--------------------
Total: Rs. 5,65,204
--------------------
(iii) Apply Multiplier 14 to his annual income
Rs. 5,65,204 x 14
Rs. 79,12,856/-
(iv) Loss of earning capacity (by applying
the disability to the extent of 78%)
Rs. 79,12,856 x 78% Rs. 61,72,028/-
(v) Add: Injury, pain and suffering as
granted by the High Court Rs. 1,00,000/-
(vi) Add: Medical expenditure as granted by
the High Court Rs. 2,14,056/-
(vii) Add: Attendant, conveyance & misc.
expenses as granted by the High Court Rs. 50,000/-
(viii) Add: Loss of amenities as granted by
the High Court Rs. 1,00,000/-
(ix) Add: Future Medical Expenses as
granted by the High Court Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Compensation amount Rs. 67,36,084/-
1036 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
28. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, what we have noted is
that Tribunal in the first award made on 31.01.2014 awarded interest
of 9% per annum, and subsequently, when it was remanded for
fresh consideration the Tribunal again awarded interest at the rate
of 9% per annum vide award dated 31.01.2016. However, the High
Court, vide the impugned order dated 14.11.2019, reduced the said
interest to 6% per annum, which is on a lower side. However, we
are of the view that it would serve the ends of justice if the interest
is enhanced to 7% per annum.
29. Accordingly, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 67,36,084/- is to be released
in the favour of the appellants at the rate of interest of 7% simple
interest per annum which, according to our view, would meet the
ends of justice, and the interest is to be calculated from the date of
the filing of the claim application till the realization of the enhanced
compensation.
30. Since both the respondents are jointly and severally liable,
Respondent No. 2 is directed to pay the enhanced compensation
of Rs. 67,36,084/-, with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum
as directed above, within a period of six weeks from the date of this
order to the appellants. Respondent No. 2 is at liberty to recover its
share from the Respondent No. 1, if any, in accordance with law.
31. The appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms and the
common impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed in MFA No.
3569/2016 and MFA No.4867/2016 by the Karnataka High Court is
modified to the extent indicated above.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor Accident Claim"Sign in to search