KAVINversusP. SREEMANI DEVI & ORS.

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1184 : 2025 INSC 1028

                                Kavin
                                  v.
                        P. Sreemani Devi & Ors.
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 3132-3133 of 2023)
                               22 August 2025
             [N.V. Anjaria and Atul S. Chandurkar,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court
       was correct in reducing the amount of compensation awarded by
       the MACT to the Appellant-claimant.

                                  Headnotes†
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Reduction in Compensation
       by the High Court – Appellant-claimant met with an accident
       while travelling in an Omni bus – Suffered serious injuries
       resulting in 100% permanent disability – Motor Accident Claims
       Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 67,83,866 /- towards the
       compensation under various heads – However, the High Court
       reduced it to Rs.48,83,866/- – Correctness:
       Held: The High Court was not justified in reducing the quantum of
       compensation that was awarded by the Claims Tribunal – Claimant
       was 21 years when the accident took place and has suffered
       100% disability – Reduction in the amount granted towards future
       medical expenses is totally unjustified – The amount granted
       towards future medical expenses deserves to be enhanced to Rs.
       15 lacs – An amount granted towards loss of enjoyment of life
       and amenities was set aside by the High Court without assigning
       any reason whatsoever – The award of an amount of Rs. 3 lacs
       towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities as granted by
       the Claims Tribunal stands restored – Coming to the grant of
       compensation towards attendant charges, an amount of Rs. 10
       lacs is granted towards attendant charges – The compensation of
       Rs. 3 lacs granted towards pain and suffering of family members
       by the Claims is restored – Taking into consideration the 100%
       disability suffered by the claimant, he would be entitled to amount
       of Rs. 5 lacs under this head – The findings recorded by the High


* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         1185

                    Kavin v. P. Sreemani Devi & Ors.


     Court for reducing the amount of compensation to the extent of
     Rs. 19 lacs from what was awarded by the Claims Tribunal are
     unsustainable and thus set aside – Instead, it is held that the
     claimant would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 82,83,866/- as
     compensation u/s.166 of the Act of 1988 – The unpaid amount
     of compensation to be paid to the appellant with interest at the
     rate of 7.5% per annum as directed by the Claims Tribunal.
     [Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]

                             Case Law Cited
     K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Another, 2024 INSC 886 :
     [2024] 11 SCR 835; Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others, 2020
     INSC 135 : [2020] 3 SCR 622; Sri. Benson George v. Reliance
     General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2022 INSC 235 : [2022]
     1 SCR 653; Dhamodaran (deceased) and Others v. Bhaskar Sekar
     and Another (C.M.A. Nos. 1646 of 2015 and 1301 of 2017 dated
     19.12.2018) – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

                            List of Keywords
     Compensation; Reduction in Compensation; Permanent disability;
     Pain and suffering; Attendant charges; Compensation; Motor
     Accident; Loss of enjoyment of life and amenities; Future medical
     expenses; Not justified in reducing the quantum of compensation.

                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 3132-3133
     of 2023
     From the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2022 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Madras in CMA No(s). 902 of 2020 and 677 of 2021

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Ms. Harsha Tripathi, Balaji Srinivasan.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Nikhil Swami, Ms. Divya Swami, Ms. Prerna Mehta.
1186                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Atul S. Chandurkar, J.

1.   The appellant-claimant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Division
     Bench of the Madras High Court in C.M.A. Nos.902 of 2020 and
     677 of 2021 as a result of which the amount of compensation that
     was awarded to the claimant by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
     came to be reduced.
2.   It is the case of the claimant that on 03.07.2011, he was travelling in
     an Omni bus bearing registration No.KA 20A 6604 as a passenger
     from Coimbatore to Chennai. There were 22 co-passengers travelling
     with him. At about 10:15 PM, the said bus that was being driven by
     one Mr. Balaji gave a dash to a tamarind tree that was at the left
     side of the road. As a result of the said accident, various passengers
     suffered grievous injuries. Insofar as the claimant is concerned, he
     too suffered serious injuries resulting in 100% permanent disability.
     He was required to undergo treatment for a considerable period of
     time. When the accident occurred, the claimant was aged about
     21 years and was pursuing the degree course in Arts. In view of
     the aforesaid accident, the claimant filed M.C.O.P. No.962 of 2011
     seeking compensation of an amount of Rs. 1 crore under Section
     166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’).
3.   Along with the aforesaid claim petition, various other claim petitions
     were filed by other injured passengers who were travelling in the
     said Omni bus. All the claim petitions were tried together. After
     considering the affidavits filed by the contesting respondents as well
     as the evidence led by the parties, the learned Member of the Claims
     Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was owned by the second
     respondent. The said vehicle was insured with the third respondent-
     insurance company. It was also held that the accident occurred on
     account of rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. On these
     findings, the liability of paying compensation was saddled on the
     insurance company. While determining the amount of compensation
     to be awarded to the claimant, the Claims Tribunal noted that the
     claimant had suffered 100% permanent physical disability. On the
     basis of documentary material on record, it granted compensation
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        1187

                    Kavin v. P. Sreemani Devi & Ors.


     under various heads including medical expenses, future prospects,
     loss of income, future medical expenses, attendant charges as well
     as towards pain and suffering of family members. An amount of
     Rs.67,83,866/- came to be awarded as compensation to the claimant.
4.   The claimant as well as the insurance company were aggrieved by
     the award dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Claims Tribunal. While
     the claimant preferred C.M.A. No.902 of 2020 seeking enhancement
     in the amount of compensation, the insurance company preferred
     C.M.A. No.677 of 2021 challenging the quantum of compensation as
     awarded. Both the appeals were heard together and by the judgment
     dated 16.08.2022, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court
     affirmed the findings as regards rash and negligent driving by the first
     respondent and ownership of the offending vehicle as regards the
     second respondent. The liability of the insurance company to satisfy
     the claim for compensation was also accepted. However insofar as
     the amount of monetary compensation is concerned, the High Court
     was of the view that future medical expenses and attendant charges
     had been granted on a higher side. The amounts granted under these
     heads were thus reduced. Insofar as compensation granted towards
     permanent disability, loss of enjoyment of life and amenities as well
     as towards pain and sufferings of family members came to be set
     aside. As a consequence, the amount of compensation as granted
     by the Claims Tribunal came to be reduced by an amount of Rs.
     19 lacs. Consequently, it was held that the claimant was entitled to
     compensation of Rs.48,83,866/-. The appeal preferred by the claimant
     was thus dismissed while the appeal preferred by the insurance
     company was partly allowed. The claimant being aggrieved by the
     reduction in the amount of compensation as well as the refusal to
     enhance the amount of compensation has thus come up in appeal.
5.   Ms. Harsha Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the claimant
     submitted that the High Court was not justified in reducing the
     amount of compensation by Rs. 19 lacs. There was no justification
     whatsoever to hold that the evidence on record was insufficient to
     support the claim for future medical expenses. As the claimant had
     suffered 100% permanent disability it was obvious that he would
     be required to undertake medical treatment for his entire life. There
     was no justification for the High Court to have reduced the amount
     of compensation under these heads. In fact, the High Court ought
     to have awarded a higher amount than that granted by the Claims
1188                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount
     of Rs. 3 lacs granted towards permanent disability came to be
     set aside by the High Court without any justifiable reason. Merely
     because compensation was granted towards loss of income, the
     same would not justify non-grant of compensation for permanent
     disability. Similarly, there was no legal basis for setting aside the
     amount of compensation granted towards loss of enjoyment of life
     and amenities as well as pain and suffering of family members.
     Relying upon the decision of this Court in K.S. Muralidhar v.
     R. Subbulakshmi and another, 2024 INSC 886, it was submitted
     that the claimant as well as his family members were entitled to be
     granted compensation under the head “family pain and sufferings.”
     In fact, the amount of Rs. 3 lacs as granted by the Claims Tribunal
     was on a lower side. The High Court was also not justified in reducing
     the compensation that was granted by the Claims Tribunal towards
     attendant charges. In the light of injuries suffered by the claimant
     resulting in permanent disability, it was obvious that the claimant
     would require the services of an attendant for his entire life. In
     that regard reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in
     Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and others, 2020 INSC 135 and Sri. Benson
     George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another,
     2022 INSC 235. It was thus submitted that the High Court not only
     erred in reducing the amount of compensation that was granted by
     the Claims Tribunal but also failed to enhance that amount despite
     substantial evidence on record. It was thus prayed that the entire
     amount as claimed in the claim petition be granted to the claimant
     and that the appeals be allowed.
6.   On the other hand, Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel appearing
     for the insurance company supported the impugned judgment and
     opposed the prayer made by the claimant. It was submitted that the
     High Court rightly found that as the claim for compensation towards
     loss of income had been granted there was no justification for granting
     a sum of Rs. 3 lacs towards permanent disability. As the claimant
     failed to lead any evidence in respect of future medical expenses,
     the amount of Rs. 9 lacs as awarded by the Claims Tribunal was
     rightly reduced to Rs. 2 lacs. Same was the case with regard to
     compensation towards attendant charges. There was no basis
     whatsoever for granting the amount of Rs. 6 lacs as awarded by
     the Claims Tribunal. The reasons for setting aside the compensation
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      1189

                    Kavin v. P. Sreemani Devi & Ors.


     towards pain and suffering of the family members were also correct
     and the same did not call for any interference. In any event, it was
     submitted that considering the nature of evidence brought on record
     by the claimant, the High Court was justified in reducing the amount
     of compensation from that which was granted by the Claims Tribunal.
     The learned counsel further submitted that there was no case made
     out to further enhance the amount of compensation as sought by
     the claimant. It was therefore urged that there was no merit in the
     appeals and same were liable to be dismissed.
     Mr. Nikhil Swami, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the
     vehicle also opposed the appeals.
7.   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with
     their assistance we have also perused the documentary material
     on record. At the outset, it may be stated that the findings recorded
     by the Claims Tribunal as regards occurrence of the accident, the
     offending vehicle being driven by the first respondent, ownership
     of the offending vehicle as well as the liability of the insurance
     company to satisfy the claim for compensation have been affirmed
     by the High Court. These findings are not under challenge by any
     of the respondents in these appeals. It is only the claimant who is
     aggrieved by the reduction in the amount of compensation from that
     which was granted by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, the only aspect to
     be considered in these appeals is the prayer for enhancement of
     compensation as made by the claimant by treating all other findings
     as recorded being accepted by the respondents.
8.   Having perused the material on record, we find that the High Court
     was not justified in reducing the quantum of compensation that
     was awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It may be noted that the fact
     that the claimant had suffered 100% disability and that he was in
     a vegetative state was not questioned by the owner of the vehicle
     or the insurance company. The age of the claimant was 21 years
     when the accident took place. He was pursuing his education at
     that point of time. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
     claimant, the Claims Tribunal was of the view that even after being
     discharged from hospital, he would be required to undergo periodical
     medical check-ups. Future medical expenses were calculated at
     the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month for a duration of 25 years and on
     that basis an amount of Rs. 9 lacs came to be awarded. The High
1190                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     Court was of the opinion that the aforesaid amount as granted was
     excessive though it was of the view that the claimant would require
     some amount for such expenses. It is for this reason that the amount
     granted towards future medical expenses was reduced from Rs. 9
     lacs to Rs. 2 lacs.
9.   We find that this reduction in the amount granted towards future
     medical expenses is totally unjustified. Though the figure of Rs.
     3,000/- per month as granted appears to be reasonable, in our view
     restricting the amount of future medical expenses only for a period of
     25 years appears to be unjustified. As noted above, the claimant was
     aged about 21 years when the accident took place. If the amount of
     future medical expenses is restricted only for a further duration of 25
     years, it would meet such expenses till the claimant attains the age
     of 46 years. In our view, the amount granted towards future medical
     expenses deserves to be enhanced keeping in view the average
     life expectancy. Taking an overall view of the matter, an amount of
     Rs. 15 lacs towards future medical expenses would meet the ends
     of justice. Part of the said amount if invested by the claimant on its
     receipt would earn interest and would enable the claimant to tide
     over future expenses in the latter part of his life. Accordingly, the
     amount of compensation granted towards future medical expenses
     stands enhanced to Rs. 15 lacs.
10. The Claims Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards loss of
    enjoyment of life and amenities. This amount however has been set
    aside by the High Court without assigning any reason whatsoever. It
    cannot be gathered from the impugned judgment as to what weighed
    with the High Court while setting aside the grant of compensation
    under this head. In the light of the permanent disability suffered by
    the claimant, the said amount of compensation as awarded did not
    warrant any interference. The award of an amount of Rs. 3 lacs
    towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities thus stands restored.
11. Coming to the grant of compensation towards attendant charges,
    the Claims Tribunal was of the view that an amount of Rs. 6 lacs
    could be granted under the said head. The High Court however was
    pleased to reduce the aforesaid amount to Rs. 3 lacs by observing
    that Rs. 6 lacs appeared to be excessive. In our view, the claimant
    having suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 100%,
    he would definitely require assistance during his further life. It has
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      1191

                    Kavin v. P. Sreemani Devi & Ors.


     come in the evidence of the claimant that he was required to use
     a water bed for his comfort considering his handicap. He was also
     required to use a wheelchair even for attending natures’ call. On that
     basis, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month for a period of 25 years
     came to be awarded. In our view, again considering the nature of
     disability suffered by the claimant he would require the services of
     an attendant for the rest of his life. The claimant being aged only
     21 years when the accident took place, a lumpsum grant of Rs. 10
     lacs towards attendant charges for the rest of his life would meet
     the ends of justice. As noted above, if the claimant invests part of
     this amount of compensation, he would receive interest on such
     invested amount that would take care of his future expenses under
     this head. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 10 lacs is granted towards
     attendant charges.
12. The Claims Tribunal was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 3 lacs
    towards pain and suffering to the family members of the claimant.
    This was done after relying upon the decision of the Division Bench
    of Madras High Court in Dhamodaran (deceased) and others vs.
    Bhaskar Sekar and another (C.M.A. Nos. 1646 of 2015 and
    1301 of 2017 dated 19.12.2018). The High Court however was
    pleased to set aside the grant of compensation under this head,
    again without assigning any reason. When the Claims Tribunal had
    awarded compensation under the head of pain and suffering of family
    members by relying upon the judgment of the High Court, another
    co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court could not have ignored the
    said judgment while setting aside the grant of such compensation by
    the Claims Tribunal. We do not find any reason whatsoever to deny
    the claimant the grant of compensation under this head. Accordingly,
    the compensation of Rs. 3 lacs towards pain and suffering of family
    members stands restored.
13. The Claims Tribunal further granted an amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards
    permanent disability suffered by the claimant. This was after taking
    into consideration the 100% disability suffered by the claimant. The
    High Court however set aside the grant of compensation under this
    head by observing that as compensation towards loss of income
    had been granted, further amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards permanent
    disability was not admissible. We do not find any basis whatsoever
    for this approach of the High Court. The grant of compensation for
    loss of future income is a distinct head from the one under which
1192                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     compensation is granted for permanent disability. In the light of
     the fact that the claimant suffered 100% permanent disability and
     was living in a vegetative state, the High Court was not justified in
     setting aside the grant of compensation under this head. In our view,
     considering the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, he would
     be entitled to amount of Rs. 5 lacs under this head.
14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the findings recorded by the
    High Court for reducing the amount of compensation to the extent
    of Rs. 19 lacs from what was awarded by the Claims Tribunal are
    unsustainable and thus set aside. Instead, it is held that the claimant
    would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 82,83,866/- as compensation
    under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. The unpaid amount of
    compensation shall be paid to the appellant within a period of four
    weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as
    directed by the Claims Tribunal.
15. The civil appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the
    parties to bear their own costs.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan