N. MANJEGOWDAversusTHE MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.

                        [2013] 12 S.C.R. 350


A                        N. MANJEGOWDA
                                   v.
     THE MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
                            LTD.
          (Civil Appeal Nos. 10192-10193 of 2013)
B                       NOVEMBER 12, 2013
            [G.S. SINGHVI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH AND
                      C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

c       MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:

          s.166 - Accident of an advocate aged 36 years -
    Compensation under head 'loss of future income due to
    disability' - Multiplier - Annual income of Advocate assessed
D   by Tribunal on the basis of Income Tax returns - Held:
    Functional disability of an accident victim requires
    determination on the basis of nature of disability in the light
    of the career or profession which the claimant was pursuing -
    It should not be computed mechanically only on percentage
E   of physical disability - A young Advocate is bound to suffer
    huge professional loss on account of injuries as have been
    sustained by the appellant - He was having partial sensory
    loss all over his limbs and lacked proper coordination in all
    four limbs -- It is the medical opinion that appellant requires
    an assistant for daily routine work - High Court erred in
F   reducing compensation under head 'loss of future income' -
    Loss of earning should be treated as 70% and appropriate
    multiplier should be 16 in place of 13 - On that basis, the loss
    of income due to disability is enhanced from Rs.6, 17,5001-
    (as awarded by Tribunal) by Rs.4,00,0001- - Compensation
G   under other heads calls for   no    interference - Claimant shall
    be entitled to 6% interest on total compensation from date of
    petition till date of payment.
        The appellant, an Advocate by profession, aged
H                                 350
N. MANJEGOWpA v. MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA 351
           INSURANCE CO. LTD.
about 36 years, while riding his motor bike, met with an A
accident involving motor bike of respondent no.2, and
sustained grievous injuries over his hands, legs and
spinal cord. He preferred a claim petition u/s 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal, which on the
basis of Income Tax Returns, accepted annual income of B
the appellant to be Rs.95,000/-, assessed the whole body
disability at 50%, selected 13 as the multiplier and
awarded an amount of Rs.6,17,500/- under the head of
'Loss of income due to disability'; and the total
compensation as Rs. 8,87,300/-. The High Court reduced c
compensation under the head 'Loss of Income due to
disability' to Rs.1,50,000/-. The total compensation was
thus reduced by a sum of Rs.4,67,500/-.

    Allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                            D
     HELD: 1.1 Functional disability of an accident victim
requires determination on the basis of nature of disability
in the light of the career or profession which he or she
wa·s pursuing in life. It shloi\ild not be computed
mechanically only on percentage of physical disability. E
[para 11] [358-F-G]

    Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Limited And
Others 2013 (8) SCC 389 - relied on.
     1.2 A young Advocate is bound to suffer huge F
professional loss on account of injuries as have been
sustained by the appellant and the condition in which the
doctor found him. The appellant has been found to suffer
weakness of four limbs. He has to work slowly and
requires help in climbing steps, cannot run, cannot write G
sharply and speedily with his right hand. He was having
partial sensory loss all over his limbs and lacked proper
coordination in all four limbs. It is the medical opinion
that the appellant requires an assistant for daily routine
work. In view of the medical assessment of appellant's H
    352      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A condition after sustaining injuries in the accident and in
  the light of whole body disability of 50%, it would be
  certainly very difficult for the appellant to practice as an
  Advocate and compete with others so as to command
  confidence and acceptability of general clients. Unlike
B many other professions, legal profession requires not
  only sharp and focused mind but also good health and
  ability to put in hard work within a limited time frame. The
  High Court erred in opining that the accident and the
  injuries, which were proved to have caused 50%
C disability of whole body, would have no effect on the
  earning capacity of the appellant. [para 8 and 12) [356-G-
  H; 358-G; 359-A-D]

      1.3 The High Court erred in reducing the loss of
  income due to disability. A perusal of the impugned
D judgment shows that there is no basis for allowing only
  Rs.1,50,0001- under the head 'Loss of future income.' [para
  10 and 13) [357-C; 359-E]

          Yadava Kumar vs. Divisional Manager, National
E Insurance Company Limited And Another2010 (10) SCR 746
    =
    2010(10) sec 341 - referred to.

       1.4 The amount of Rs.6,17,5001- under the head 'Loss
  of future income' did not require any reduction. On the
  other hand, the facts of the case persuade this Court that
F to do complete justice in the matter, the loss of earning
  should be treated as 70% and the appropriate multiplier
  should be 16 in place of 13. On that basis, the loss of
  income due to disability requires to be enhanced from
  Rs.6, 17,5001- by atleast Rs.4,00,0001-. Accordingly, the
G impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and
  the award made by the Tribunal is modified by adding
  Rs.4,00,0001- towards the heading 'Loss of income due
  to disability' with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
  petition till payment. Rest of the order of the Tribunal is
H confirmed. [para 13) [359-E-G; 360-A]
N. MANJEGOWDA v. MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA 353
           INSURANCE CO. LTD.
    Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar 2010 (13) SCR 179     =(2011) A
1 sec 343 - cited.
                     Case Law Reference:
    2010 (13) SCR 179       cited                para 8
                                                                B
    2010 (10) SCR 746       referred to          para 11
    2013 (8) sec 389        relied on             para 11
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
10192-10193 of 2013.                                            c
    From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2012 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 2386 of
2007 (MN).

    D.L. Chidananda, Gaurav Dhingra for the Appellant.          D

    A.K. Raina, Binay Kumar Das for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Leave granted.                     E

     2. The appellant has preferred these appeals against final
judgment and order dated 06.09.2012 whereby the High Court
of Karnataka has dismissed appeal preferred by the appellant
bearing M.F.A. No. 2386 of 2007 (MV) preferred for F
enhancement of compensation allowed in his favour by the
judgment and Award dated 11.12.2006 in MVC No. 1322 of
2005 by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and
Additional Member of Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal
 (MACT), Hassan, and partly allowed appeal preferred by the G
 respondent-Insurance Company bearing M.F.A. No. 6612 of
 2007.
    3. The appellant is an Advocate by profession. On
17.4.2005 while he was riding his motor bike and his wife was
                                                                H
    354      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 12 S.C.R.

A a pillion rider with him, he met with an accident involving motor
   bike of respondent no.2. As a result, the appellant sustained
  grievous injuries over his hands, legs and spinal cord. He
   preferred claim petition on 05.12.2005 under Section 166 of
  the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming
B compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lacs) with
  interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the respondent by way of
  just compensation for injuries, losses, medical expenses, loss
  of income due to disability, etc. By judgment and Award dated
  11.12.2006 the Tribunal considered the relevant facts as well
C as evidence and awarded total compensation of Rs.08,87 ,300/,
    (rupees eight lacs eighty seven thousand and three hundred
  only). This included an amount of Rs.06, 17,500 (rupees six lacs
  seventeen thousand and five hundred only) on the head of 'Loss
  of income due to disability'. The Tribunal also allowed interest
  at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment.
D
       4. As noted earlier, the matter was taken in appeal to the
  High Court of Karnataka through two appeals, one preferred
  by the appellant complaining against inadequacy of the
  compensation and the other by the Insurance Company for
E reduction of the same. By the impugned judgment, the High
  Court reduced compensation of Rs.06, 17,500/- (rupees six lacs
  seventeen thousand and five hundred only) under the head
  'Loss of Income due to disability' to Rs.01,50,000/- (rupees one
  lac and fifty thousand only) and accordingly the total amount of
F Rs.08,87,300/- (rupees eight lacs eighty seven thousand and
  three hundred only) was reduced by a sum of Rs.04,67,500/-
  (rupees four lacs sixty seven thousand and five hundred only).
  The appeal of the appellant seeking enhancement of
  compensation was dismissed without interfering with Award of
G compensation on eight other heads.
       5. Before noticing the submissions it is useful to indicate
  that there is no dispute over most of the relevant facts except
  what should have been accepted as the annual income of the
  appellant, what would be appropriate multiplier and what should
H be taken to be the loss of income due to admitted disability.
N. MANJEGOWDA v. MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA 355
   INSURANCE CO. LTD. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
At the time of the a.;ciaent appellant was aged about thirty six A
years.

     6. The accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant
are not in dispute. On the basis of the evidence of a treating
physician, PW.36 a Neuro Surgeon, at the time of admission
                                                                   8
in the hospital it was found that the appellant had no strength in
hands <ind legs, there was full loss of sensation below the neck
and the urinary track was blocked. The Tribunal has taken a note
of all the releve!"'t details and injuries in paragraph 11 of its
judgment and Award wherein it has been accepted on the basis
of medical evidence that the appellant has sustained whole body C
disability of 50%. That paragraph 11 reads as follows:

            "11. P.W.3 Dr. Dhananjaya I. Bhat the Neuro Surgeon
     of Mangala Hospital has deposed the condition of the
     petitioner on 19.04.2005 at Sanjeevini Hospital, Hassan for D
     having admitted the history of accident. On examination
     found that there was no strength in hands and legs, full loss
     of sensation below the neck, the urinary track was blocked.
     M.R.I, revealed injury on neck spine, for which he was
     treated between 1 Y. to two months as inpatient. The E
     clinical treatment, physiotherapy and medicines were
     carried out during the course of treatment. The follow up
     examination of P.W.1 on 01.10.2006 revealed that
     weakness of all four limbs at grade-4 out of normal 5 to
     the lower limb grade-3 out of normal 5 for upper limbs. The F
     petitioner has to walk slowly require help for climbing
     steps, cannot run, he could not write sharply and speedy
     in his right hand. From his left hand not in a position to lock
     the shirt button, slow and difficult holding of spoon for
     feeding. The petitioner still having partial sensory loss over G
     his limbs and improper co-ordination in all four limbs. The
      urinary dysfunction and is prone for urinary track infection
      and also kidney damage. The petitioner is suffering from
      pain and burning sensation and there is a disturbance in
      his sleeping. For these reasons for daily routine work of H
    356       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A         the petitioner require an assistant. For having evaluated
          the petitioner P.W.3 has issued certificate as per Ex.P.
          166. According to him the above: deformities caused 50%
          whole body permanent disability. P.W.3 has been cross-
          examined by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
B         The cross-examination failed to bring out that the petitioner
          has not sustained, any disability, deformity and difficulty in
          doing his job. Except suggesting that the disability was
          excessively spoken to though that much of disability was
          not at all sustained, which in fact have been denied by the
c         expert doctor. The petitioner being an advocate being
          suffered the above deformities certainly effects his
          functioning. Thus, the medical evidence is accepted
          holding that the petitioner has sustained whole body
          disability of 50%."

D     7. Although the appellant claimed that his earning was
  Rs.15,000/- p.m. (rupees fifteen thousand only) and also
  produced copy of his Pan Card as Ex.P.9 but on the basis of
  Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2005-2006
  showing income of Rs.95,000/- p.a. (rupees ninety five
E thousand only), the Tribunal accepted annual income of the
  appellant to be Rs.95,000/- (ninety five thousand) and selected
  13 as the multiplier on the basis of the age of the appellant.
  According to the Tribunal the loss of earning could be 50% and
  hence it calculated the compensation on that head to be
F Rs.06, 17,500/-(rupees six lacs seventeen thousand and five
  hundred).

       8. The High Court was called upon to decide the annual
  income of the appellant, the correct multiplier and the loss of
G income out of the total sum arrived at by multiplying the annual
  income with the chosen multiplier. On account of the income
  tax returns, the High Court came to an opinion that the accident
  and the injuries which were proved to have caused 50%
  disability of whole body would have no effect on the earning
  capacity of the appellant. On the basis of decision of this Court
H
N. MANJEGOWDA v. MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA 357
   INSURANCE CO. LTD. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar1 the High Court               A
proceeded to reconsider compensation for the loss of future
income and reduced it from Rs.6,17,500 to Rs.1,50,000/-.

     9. On behalf of the appellant the aforesaid reduction has
been challenged on the ground that the view taken by the High         81
Court ignores the nature of injuries which has been proved by
medical evidence and reduction is without any rational basis
because the High Court has neither doubted the annual income
of the appellant nor the multiplier chosen by the Tribunal and
has not addressed the issue raised by the appellant as to what        C
should be the correct multiplier.

     10. A perusal of the impugned judgment, particularly
paragraph 22 thereof, shows that there is no basis for allowing
only Rs.1,50,000/- under the head 'Loss of future income.'
                                                                  D
     11. This Court in the case of Yadava Kumar vs. Divisional
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited And Another2
(to which one of us - G.S. Singhvi,J. was a member) held that
in determining compensation in non fatal accidents the Court
should award "just compensation" by taking a reasonably E
compassionate view of things. While disapproving the view of
the High Court in not allowing any compensation for loss of
future earnings to the appellant this Court allowed Rs.2,00,000/-
  (rupees two lacs) along with 8% interest. In that case tl'le
appellant was a Painter and had incurred disability of 33% in
                                                                  F
respect of right upper limb, 21% in left upper limb and 20% in
respect of whole body. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of that report
indicate the proper approach required of the Tribunal and the
High Court in such matters. They are as follows:

            "15. It goes without saying that in matters of            G
      determination of compensation both the tribunal and the
      court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing

 1.   (2011) 1 sec 343.
 2.   c201oi 10 sec 341.                                              H
    358       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 12 S.C.R.


A         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
B         tribunals and the courts. This reasonableness on the part
          of the tribunal and the court must be on a large peripheral
          field. Both the courts and the tribunals in the matter of this
          exercise should be guided by principles of good
          conscience so that the ultimate result becomes just and
c         equitable (see Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC-
          (1999) 1 sec 90.

                 16. This Court also held that in the determination of
          the quantum of compensation, the court must be liberal and
          not niggardly inasmuch as in a free country law must value
D         life and limb on a generous scale (see Hardeo Kaur v.
          Rajasthan State Transport Corpn. (1992) 2 SCC 567."
        11. In a recent judgment in the case of Rekha Jain vs.
  National Insurance Company Limited And Others3, this Court
E drew a very relevant distinction between permanent disability
  which was found to be 30% and functional disability which this
  Court held to be 100% on account of serious disfigurement of
  the face of the appellant because it was bound to cause loss
  of career for the appellant who in that case was an actress in
F films/T.V. features. Hence, it must be taken as a trite law that
  functional disability of an accident victim requires determination
  on the basis of nature of disability in the light of the career or
  profession which he or she was pursuing in life. It should not
  be computed mechanically only on percentage of physical
G disability.
         12. In the present case the appellant has been found to
    suffer weakness of four limbs. He has to work slowly and
    requires help in climbing steps, cannot run, cannot write sharply

H 3.   (2013) a sec 389.
N. MANJEGOWDA v. MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA 359
   INSURANCE CO. LTD. [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]
and speedily with his right hand. With his left hand he cannot A
lock the shirt button and has difficulty in holding of spoon for
self-feeding. He was having partial sensory loss all over his
limbs and lacked proper coordination in all four limbs. It is the
medical opinion that for these reasons the appellant requires
an assistant for daily routine work. In view of aforesaid medical B
assessment of appellant's condition after sustaining injuries in
the accident and in the light of whole body disability of 50%, it
would be certainly very difficult for the appellant to practice as
 an Advocate and compete with others so as to command
 confidence and acceptability of general clients. Unlike many c
 other professions, legal profession requires not only sharp and
 focused mind but also good health and ability to put in hard
 work within a limited time frame. The requirement of impressing
 the client at the age of 36 is much more. It is only when a young
 Advocate has built a good impression and reputation, then in D
 the evening of his life he may continue to command professional
 work on the basis of his acquired knowledge and reputation.
 A young Advocate is bound to suffer huge professional loss on
 account of injuries as have been sustained by the appellant and
 the condition in which the Doctor found him.
                                                                      E
        13. In the facts of the case we have no hesitation in holding
  that the High Court erred in reducing the loss of income due to
 disability. The amount on that head of Rs.6, 17,500/- did not
  require any reduction. On the other hand, the facts of the case
  persuade us that to do complete justice in the matter, the loss F
  of earning should be treated as 70% and the appropriate
  multiplier should be 16 in place of 13. On that basis, the loss
  of income due to disability requires to be enhanced from
  Rs.6, 17,500/- by atleast Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lacs)
  although the exact amount would be a bit more. Accordingly, G
  the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the
  Award made by the Tribunal is modified by adding Rs.4,00,000/
  - (rupees four lacs) towards the heading 'Loss of income due
  to disability. As a result, the total compensation payable to the
   appellant would now be Rs.12,87,300/- (rupees twelve lacs H
    360      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 12 S.C.R.


A eighty seven thousand and three hundred only) in place of
  Rs.8,87,300/- (rupees eight lacs eighty seven thousand and
  three hundred only). Rest of the order of the Tribunal is
  confirmed. The enhanced amount shall also carry an interest
  at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. The
B amount of compensation now found due shall be paid to the
  appellant within two months from the date ofthfs order along
  with costs quantified at Rs.15,000/-.

         14. Accordingly appeals are allowed to the aforesaid
    extent.
c
    R.P.                                         Appeals allowed.