Supreme Court: Notional income of permanently disabled child is to be determined on the basis of the minimum wages admissible for a skilled workman in the State

 Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the documentary material on record, we are of the considered view that the amount of compensation as awarded by the High Court deserves enhancement. The Appellant was aged fourteen years when the accident took place and as a result of the same has suffered 100% permanent disability. The High Court has considered the notional annual income as ` 30,000/-. This amount is on a lower side. The notional income would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum wages admissible for a skilled workman in the State of Rajasthan in 2016. Such minimum wages were ` 5,746/- per month. Taking the monthly notional income at ` 5,800/-, the annual income would be ` 69,600/-. Future prospects at 40% would make the annual income as ` 97,440/-. On the basis of the age of the Appellant, multiplier of 18 has been rightly applied. On that basis, the loss of income would come to ` 17,53,920/-. {Para 8}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7055 of 2026 

Decided On: 06.05.2026

Hansraj Vs. Mukesh Nath and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 454,MANU/SC/0440/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: In cases involving a child who has suffered injury or died, the loss of income must be computed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State

For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court's interference, applying well-established principles of law. {Para 15}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10278 of 2025 

Decided On: 08.08.2025

Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Citation: 2025INSC 1070,MANU/SC/1796/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Motor Accident Claims | If Claimant Doesn't Produce Income Proof, Insurer Must Furnish Applicable Minimum Wages Notification

 We may also observe that, in general, i.e., accidents involving adults, we are often confronted with situations where the Minimum Wage Data is not readily available and every so often, the question that has been made up to this Court hinges only on the calculation of income. In that view of the matter and in the hope of reducing the claimants need to file appeals to this Court or even the High Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that in cases where the claimant has failed to furnish appropriate details of income or adequate proof thereof, it shall be the responsibility and obligation of the contesting party, more particularly the insurance company to furnish before the Tribunal the applicable minimum wage as duly issued by the concerned government.{Para 16}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10278 of 2025 

Decided On: 08.08.2025

Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Citation: 2025INSC 1070,MANU/SC/1796/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Sufferance of fracture by itself resulting in shortening of leg to some extent does not come within the purview of the 'permanent total disablement'.

There exists a distinction between a `total disablement' and `total permanent disablement' as contained in Schedule I Part I of the 1923 Act. Sufferance of fracture by itself resulting in shortening of leg to some extent does not come within the purview of the `permanent total disablement' even under the 1923 Act. {Para 9}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5949 of 2008 

Decided On: 01.10.2008

Ramprasad Balmiki Vs. Anil Kumar Jain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: 2008 SCC 9 4922008 KERLT 4 3122008 ACJ 0 28652008 SCALE 13 182008 ANWR 2 6212008 ALD 6 822008 KLT SC 4 3122008 AIOL 11082009 AIR SC 3372009 ANJ SC 1 492008 JT 10 7022009 LLJ SC 3 3592008 SCC CRI 3 8042008 SUPREME 7 1292008 KLT 4 3122008 ACJ SC 2865008 INSC 1113,MANU/SC/8096/2008.

Print Page

When family members are taking care of permanently disabled person in Motor accident claim petition, Supreme Court has granted Rs one lakh towards attendant charges

 In this regard, we have perused the statement of the Appellant's mother (PW-3). As per her statement, initially they had engaged an attendant at ` 6,000 per month. However, he had left his services about a month before the mother was cross-examined on 23rd September, 2016. Further, the Appellant's father works as a priest and have a meagre monthly income. Thus, it is the Appellant's mother and other family members who are taking care of him. Considering the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, a lump sum amount of ` 1,00,000/- is reasonable and deserves to be awarded to the Appellant on account of future attendant charges. {Para 17}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 11100 of 2024.

Decided On: 15.10.2024

Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.

Author: Rajesh Bindal, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 777, MANU/SC/1109/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Burden of proof in motor accident claim petition is on respondent to show that after accident victim is earning money by doing another work

 In light of the aforesaid decisions, we find it extremely difficult to uphold the decision of the High Court and the Tribunal based on the finding that the loss of the Appellant's earning capacity as a result of the amputation of his left leg was only 50%. It is noted above that the Appellant used to earn his livelihood as a cart puller. The Tribunal has found that at the time of the accident his age was 55 years. At that age it would be impossible for the Appellant to find any job. From the trend of cross-examination it appears that an attempt was made to suggest that notwithstanding the loss of one leg the Appellant could still do some work sitting down such as selling vegetables. It is all very well to theoretically talk about a cart puller changing his work and becoming a vegetable vendor. But the computation of compensation payable to a victim of motor accident who suffered some serious permanent disability resulting from the loss of a limb etc. should not take into account such indeterminate factors. Any scaling down of the compensation should require something more tangible than a hypothetical conjecture that notwithstanding the disability, the victim could make up for the loss of income by changing his vocation or by adopting another means of livelihood. The party advocating for a lower amount of compensation for that reason must plead and show before the Tribunal that the victim enjoyed some legal protection (as in the case of persons covered by The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) or in case of the vast multitude who earn their livelihood in the unorganized sector by leading cogent evidence that the victim had in fact changed his vocation or the means of his livelihood and by virtue of such change he was deriving a certain income. {Para 10}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2012.

Decided On: 10.01.2012

Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.

Author: Aftab Alam, J.

Citation: AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 782, 2012 (2) SCC 267,MANU/SC/0011/2012.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Three steps inquiry necessary for ascertaining functional disability due to motor accident

 Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. {Para 13}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2012.

Decided On: 10.01.2012

Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.

Author: Aftab Alam, J.

Citation: AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 782, 2012 (2) SCC 267,MANU/SC/0011/2012.

Print Page

Whether it is duty of respondent in motor accident claim petition to prove that victim could make up for the loss of income by changing his vocation or by adopting another means of livelihood?

 Any scaling down of the compensation should require something more tangible than a hypothetical conjecture that notwithstanding the disability, the victim could make up for the loss of income by changing his vocation or by adopting another means of livelihood. The party advocating for a lower amount of compensation for that reason must plead and show before the Tribunal that the victim enjoyed some legal protection (as in the case of persons covered by the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) or in case of the vast multitude who earn their livelihood in the unorganised sector by leading cogent evidence that the victim had in fact changed his vocation or the means of his livelihood and by virtue of such change he was deriving a certain income. {Para 13}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2020

Decided On: 17.09.2020

Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

Author: S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0696/2020, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4424, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 733.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether the claimant in case of permanent disablement due to motor accident can claim future prospects?

 Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi2 involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish3 was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant5 to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This Court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this Court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi2 is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.

{Para 7}

8. This Court has emphasized time and again that "just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2020

Decided On: 17.09.2020

Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

Author: S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0696/2020, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4424, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 733.

Print Page

Whether motor vehicle accident claim tribunal must apply multiplier method for calculation of loss of earning capacity in case of permanent disablement?

A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily abled. Movements of the Appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age. Though the High Court recognised this, it did not go forward to apply the principle of multiplier. We are of the opinion that in a case like this and having regard to the injuries suffered by the Appellant, there is a definite loss of earning capacity and it calls for grant of compensation with the adoption of multiplier method, as held by this Court in Yadava Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Limited and Anr.   MANU/SC/0657/2010 : (2010) 10 SCC 341:

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1329 of 2017.

Decided On: 02.02.2017

Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.

Author: A.K. Sikri, J.

Citations: AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1246, 2017 (3) SCC 351,  MANU/SC/0108/2017.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Multiplier method is to be used to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.

  A useful reference in this context can be made in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Khanuja V. Atul Dande and Another MANU/SC/0108/2017 : 2017, SCC 351wherein the Supreme Court, after adverting to the previous pronouncements, observed that it is now well settled principle repeatedly stated and re-stated time and again by the Supreme Court that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as "principle of multiplier" has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident. {Para 17}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 2144 of 2011

Decided On: 04.01.2022

Hareshwar Harischandra Mistry Vs. Pravin B. Nayak and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.J. Jamadar, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/0012/2022.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Claimant Entitled to compensation for Future Loss Of Income Proportionate To Extent Of Disability Though There Is No Total Loss Of Income

13. B] Loss of future earnings:-

The tribunal was of the view that since the Income Tax return for the period ending 31st March, 1997 (Exh. 45) indicated that there was no loss of income reported, despite disability, the applicant did not suffer any loss of income. Opining that mere disability was not sufficient, the tribunal proceeded to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the disability. Whether this approach of the tribunal is justifiable?

14. First and foremost, the tribunal seems to have committed an error in appreciating the facts. The accident had occurred on 27th December, 1996. The income tax return was filed for the period of 1st April 1996 to 31st March, 1997. Almost 9 months income was reported by the applicant. In that view of the matter, the claim of the applicant could not have been discarded on the ground that no loss of income was reported as the applicant could earn for the substantial part of the financial year.

15. Secondly, from the perusal of the deposition of the applicant, it becomes evident that the claim of the applicant that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident he was unable to squat, run, sit cross legged, and the movements of his right leg were restricted, went unchallenged. The applicant further affirmed that he was doing the business of fabrication and civil contractor. Post accident, he could not do the said business and was forced to seek employment at a salary of Rs. 6,500/- per month. This claim of the applicant was also not traversed during the course of the cross examination.

16. It is true that the applicant did not claim that he suffered total loss of income. Nor the applicant claimed that he was incapacitated to perform any work. In the face of the material on record to indicate that the applicant had filed income tax return for the financial year 1996-97, it could not have been disputed that the applicant was gainfully self employed. In such circumstances, even assuming the notional income at Rs. 5,000/- per month, the 20% permanent disability suffered by the applicant, would have entailed, in the minimum, corresponding 20% loss of income, resulting in the loss of Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Once, the annual loss of income is determined, the appropriate method to arrive at just compensation is multiplying the said multiplicand with appropriate multiplier, depending upon the age of the claimant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 2144 of 2011

Decided On: 04.01.2022

Hareshwar Harischandra Mistry Vs. Pravin B. Nayak and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.J. Jamadar, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/0012/2022.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to ascertain the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity?

 Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. {Para 13}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 8598-8599 of 2022.

Decided On: 18.11.2022

T.J. Parameshwarappa Vs. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Citation: 2022 INSC 1218, MANU/SC/1510/2022.

Print Page

What is duty of Motor accident claim tribunal while recording evidence of doctor in motor accident claim petition regarding personal injury?

  The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to 'hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the 'just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the 'just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. {Para 11}

If a Doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage.

12. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give 'ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8981 of 2010.

Decided On: 18.10.2010

Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.

Author: R.V. Raveendran, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1018/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 343.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court judgment for determining compensation for disability in case of fatal or non-fatal accidents

13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

14. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following illustrations:

Illustration 'A': The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows:

Illustration 'B': The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000/-per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows:

Illustration 'C': The injured was 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows:

[Note: The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)].

15. After the insertion of Section 163A in the Act (with effect from 14.11.1994), if a claim for compensation is made under that section by an injured alleging disability, and if the quantum of loss of future earning claimed, falls under the second schedule to the Act, the Tribunal may have to apply the following principles laid down in Note (5) of the Second Schedule to the Act to determine compensation:

5. Disability in non-fatal accidents:

The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal accidents: -

Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty two weeks.

PLUS either of the following:

(a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or

(b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) above.

Injuries deemed to result in Permanent Total Disablement/Permanent Partial Disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8981 of 2010.

Decided On: 18.10.2010

Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.

Author: R.V. Raveendran, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1018/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 343.

Print Page

Supreme Court guidelines for determining compensation to be granted to student if he suffers permanent disability due to motor accident

19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

23. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid judgments, inter alia, following principles can be culled out which would be relevant for deciding the instant appeal:

(i) In those cases where the victim of the accident is not an earning person but a student, while assessing the compensation for loss of future earning, the focus of the examination would be the career prospect and the likely earning of such a person in future. For example, where the claimant is pursuing a particular professional course, the poser would be: what would have been his income had he joined a service commensurating with the said course. That can be the future earning.

(ii) There may be cases where the victim is not, at that stage, doing any such course to get a particular job. He or she may be studying in a school. In such a case, future career would depend upon multiple factors like the family background, choice/interest of the complainant to pursue a particular career, facilities available to him/her for adopting such a career, the favourable surrounding circumstances to see which would have enabled the claimant to successfully pick up the said career etc.

If the chosen field is employment, then the future earning can be taken on the basis of salary and allowances which are payable for such calling. In case, career is a particular profession, the future earning would depend on host of other factors on the basis of which chances to achieve success in such a profession can be ascertained.

(iii) There may be cases like Deo Patodi where even a student, the claimant would have made earnings on part-time basis or would have received offer for a particular job. In such cases, these factors would also assume relevance.

(iv) After ascertaining the likely earning of the victim in the aforesaid manner, the nature of injuries and disability suffered as a result thereof would be kept in mind while determining as to how much earning has been affected thereby. Here, impact of injuries on functional disability is to be seen. In case of death of victim, it would result in total loss of earning. In the case of injuries, the nature of disability becomes important. Such an exercise was undertaken in N. Manjegowda case.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 2476-2477 of 2019.

Decided On: 05.03.2019

M.R. Krishna Murthi Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sikri and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Author: A.K. Sikri, J.

Citation: (2020) 15 SCC 493, MANU/SC/0321/2019.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Motor accident claim tribunal must grant Rs.6 lakhs towards Pain and Sufferings and Loss of Amenities if the disability is more than 90%.

(2) Pain and Sufferings and Loss of Amenities: - Under the head of ‘Pain and Sufferings” and “Loss of Amenities” a total of Rs. 3 lakh (1,50,000 each) was granted by the High Court. In Kajal's case this Court referred to with agreement the decision in Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited9 whereunder, while dealing with the issue of award under this head, it was held that it should be at least Rs. 6 lakhs if the disability is more than 90%. Since the disability in this case was already assessed as more than 90% in the light of the aforesaid decision, we are inclined to grant an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs additionally to the appellant idest after deducting Rs. 3 lakhs from Rs. 6 lakhs.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.)

Divya Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another .

Civil Appeal No. 7605 of 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25303 of 2019)

Decided on October 18, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1488.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Motor accident claim tribunal can not grant compensation under the head of pain and suffering by family members of the claimant

 It is perceptible that the High Court has deleted the amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering by family members of the claimant and the amount granted towards loss of marital life. There is no iota of evidence with regard to loss of marital life, hence, we do not find any error in the said deletion. As far as grant of compensation on the score of pain and suffering suffered by the family members of claimant is concerned, the same is not permissible and, accordingly, we hold that that has been correctly deleted. {Para 30}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7603 of 2012.

Decided On: 19.10.2012

K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, JJ.

Author: Dipak Misra, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0908/2012, (2012) 12 SCC 274.

Read full Judgment here: Click here. 

Print Page

Supreme Court: Motor accident claim tribunal can not grant compensation to claimant for his inability to participate in public functions

 The High Court has deleted an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony and inability on the part of the claimant to participate in public functions respectively. We have already determined Rs. 2,00,000/- under the heading of pain and suffering already suffered and to be suffered and Rs. 2,50,000/- under the heading of permanent disability and hence, no different sum need be awarded under the heading of mental agony. As far as participation in public functions is concerned, there is no evidence in that regard and, therefore, we are disposed to think that the finding of the High Court on that score is totally justified and does not call for any interference. {Para 31}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7603 of 2012.

Decided On: 19.10.2012

K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, JJ.

Author: Dipak Misra, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0908/2012, (2012) 12 SCC 274.

Read full Judgment here: Click here. 

Print Page

Supreme court: While computing compensation, the approach of the Motor accident claim Tribunal should be broad-based

It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while determining quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of the tribunal or a court has to be broad based. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of "just compensation" should be inhered. {Para 10}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7603 of 2012.

Decided On: 19.10.2012

K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, JJ.

Author: Dipak Misra, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0908/2012, (2012) 12 SCC 274.

Print Page