[2024] 4 S.C.R. 264 : 2024 INSC 291
Aabid Khan
v.
Dinesh and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 4828 of 2024)
09 April 2024
[Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to entitlement of the claimant for enhanced
compensation.
Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 – Compensation – Enhancement
– Road accident resulting in injuries to the claimant, a selfemployed mechanic with 30 years work experience – Doctors
report that claimant suffered whole body disability to the
extent of 17% – Tribunal computed the compensation towards
loss of future income as Rs.87,700/- with interest @ 7% p.a.
reducing the whole body disability at 10% on surmises and
conjectures – High Court enhanced the compensation awarded
to Rs.1,27,700/- with same interest – Correctness:
Held: Tribunal and the High Court committed a serious error in
not accepting the medical evidence tendered by the claimant
and in the absence of any contra evidence available on record,
neither the tribunal nor the High Court could have substituted the
disability to 10% as against the opinion of the doctor certified at
17% – Compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of income’
towards permanent disability to be enhanced by construing the
whole body disability at 17% – Compensation enhanced to Rs.
Rs. 2,42,120/- – Insurance Company to pay the balance amount
of compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. [Paras 10-14]
Case Law Cited
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another [2010] 13 SCR
179 : (2011) 1 SCC 343; Laxman Alias Laxman Mourya
v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
and Another (2011) 10 SCC 756; Sidram v. Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another.
[2022] 8 SCR 403 : (2023) 3 SCC 439 – referred to.
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 265
Aabid Khan v. Dinesh and Others
List of Keywords
Compensation; Whole body disability; Loss of future income; Loss
of income’ towards permanent disability.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4828 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2019 of the High Court
of M.P at Indore in MA No. 1614 of 2018
Appearances for Parties
Nitin S. Tambwekar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Priyadarshi Kumar, Ms. Stuti Jha, Advs. for
the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and
perused the records.
3. Challenge is laid in this appeal to the order dated 21.01.2019
passed in MA No.1614 of 2018 by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Bench at Indore whereunder the compensation awarded
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
‘tribunal’) by award dated 04.12.2017 in a sum of Rs.87,700/- with
interest @ 7% p.a. came to be enhanced to Rs.1,27,700/- with same
interest contending inter-alia that compensation so awarded by the
High Court is on the lower side and same has to be enhanced.
4. The occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the appellant/
claimant in the road accident that took place on 23.04.2013,
consequential disability sustained, issuance of insurance policy to the
offending vehicle and policy being in force on the date of accident
are all undisputed facts. Hence, we do not propose to dwell into
those aspects.
5. The only question that would arise for our consideration is:
266 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement
of compensation as urged? And if so, to what amount?”
6. Perusal of the award passed by the tribunal as modified by the High
Court, would reveal that claimant had sustained compound fracture
in the left acetabulum and left rib. Dr. Alok Mehta (PW-5), who had
examined the claimant had deposed that whole body disability suffered
by the claimant was to the extent of 17% and this fact has been
elicited in the cross-examination. However, the tribunal computed
the compensation towards loss of future income by considering
the whole body disability at 10%. On surmises and conjectures the
percentage of disability has been reduced. No reason whatsoever
has been assigned by the tribunal for substituting its opinion to that
of the expert opinion namely, the doctor who treated the claimant
and examined as PW-5.
7. This Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another,
(2011) 1 SCC 343 has observed:
“16. 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, Manual for Evaluation
of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopaedic
Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopaedic
Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorised 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.”
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 267
Aabid Khan v. Dinesh and Others
8. In the case of Laxman Alias Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 756, this
Court observed:
“15. The ratio of the above-noted judgments is that if the
victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary
disability, then efforts should always be made to award
adequate compensation not only for the physical injury
and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma
caused due to the accident, loss of earning and the victim’s
inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which
he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due
to the accident.”
9. Further, in the matter of Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another. [(2023) 3 SCC 439] it was
observed by this Court:
“113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined,
as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts
should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently
imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often
inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim.
The attendant trauma of the victim’s having to live in a
world entirely different from the one she or he is born into,
as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others,
robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should
forever be in the judge’s mind, whenever tasked to adjudge
compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such
injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as
an intrinsic component of the right to life Under Article 21)
of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence
of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived,
hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is
thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting
and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts
oblivious of these circumstances there is resultant affront to
the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav (supra)]”
10. In the light of the afore-stated position of law explained when the
medical evidence tendered by the claimant is perused, we are of
the considered view that tribunal and the High Court committed a
268 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
serious error in not accepting the said medical evidence and in the
absence of any contra evidence available on record, neither the
tribunal nor the High Court could have substituted the disability to
10% as against the opinion of the doctor (PW-5) certified at 17%.
In that view of the matter the compensation awarded under the
head ‘loss of income’ towards permanent disability deserves to be
enhanced by construing the whole body disability at 17%.
11. The monthly income of the claimant has been construed as Rs.3,500/-
which is on the lower side particularly in the background of the fact
that the accident in question having occurred on 23.04.2013 and the
evidence on record disclosing that claimant was self-employed as a
mechanic and had work experience of over 30 years. Resultantly his
income has to be construed at Rs.6,500/- per month in substitution
to Rs.3,500/- computed by the Tribunal and the High Court. Thus,
the claimant/appellant would be entitled for enhanced compensation
of Rs.92,820/- (Rs.6,500 X 12 X 7 X 17%) towards loss of future
income.
12. We are also of the considered view that compensation awarded by
the Tribunal under the heads of Attendant charges, pain and suffering,
transportation together in a sum of Rs.9,000 being abysmally on the
lower side and same deserves to be enhanced and accordingly a
lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under these
three (3) heads.
13. In substitution to the award of Rs.1,27,700/- awarded by the High
Court we enhance the compensation as under:
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Loss of future income due to permanent
disability
Rs.92,820/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.49,300/-
3. − Transportation,
− Attendant Charges,
− Pain and Suffering
Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.2,42,120/-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 269
Aabid Khan v. Dinesh and Others
14. We direct the Respondent No.3-Insurance Company to pay the
balance amount of compensation with interest @ 7% P.A. as awarded
by the Tribunal by depositing the same before the jurisdictional
tribunal within 6 weeks from the date of this order.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed as aforesaid with no order as
to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case:
Appeal allowed.
