Jitendra vs Sadiya

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 2025 INSC 166

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2209 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.575 of 2025)

JITENDRA … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SADIYA & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

Time taken for Time taken for Time taken for disposal of the claim disposal of the disposal of the appeal petition by MACT appeal by the High in this Court Court 5 years 8½ months 2 years 12 months

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21 st August, 2023 in

Misc. Appeal No.1803 of 2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,

which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order dated 21 st June, 2021

passed in Claim Case No.1200314 of 2016 by the 4 th Additional Member, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 25 th September, 2016 at 8:45

p.m., the Claimant-Appellant, aged 25 years, was extracting soybean from the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI 18:14:31 IST Reason: thresher machine installed in the tractor of Respondent No.1. The driver of the Date: 2025.02.07

1 tractor, Respondent No.2, reversed the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due

to which the Claimant-Appellant’s hand went into the thresher machine and, thus, he

suffered serious injuries on his hand, shoulder, head, near the ear and other parts of

the body. Subsequently, he was taken to Sanyog Hospital in Indore, and upon

treatment, his hand was amputated below the elbow.

4. In connection with this incident, on 4th October, 2016, an FIR was lodged against

the driver of the offending vehicle – Respondent No.2 at Police Station Depalpur

under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 287 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The Claimant-Appellant filed an application for compensation under the Motor

Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, submitting

therein that he is the only earning member of his family and due to the amputation,

he is unable to carry out his daily routine. He submitted that he was working as a

labourer, earning Rs.9,000/- per month at the time of the accident.

6. The Tribunal, by its Judgment and Order, held that the insurance company was

liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,76,090/- along with interest @ 6% considering 20%

permanent disability suffered by the Appellant and took the Appellant’s income as

Rs. 60,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income.

7. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the Claimant-

Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal has

incorrectly appreciated the following heads:

a. The permanent disability suffered by the Appellant; b. Future prospects, and c. Expenses incurred during the treatment.

8. The High Court, vide the impugned order, enhanced the amount awarded to the

2 Claimant-Appellant with an additional sum of Rs.2,85,600/- towards compensation

totalling up to Rs.6,61,690/-. The High Court enhanced the percentage of disability

suffered to 40% and as such, the compensation awarded by the High Court was as

under:

CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION

Monthly Income 5000 Yearly Income 5000 x 12 = 60,000/-

Future Prospects (40%) 60,000 + 24,000 = 84,000/-

Multiplier (17) 84,000 x 17 = 14,28,000 Permanent Disability 14,28,000 x 40% = Rs. 5,71,200/- (40%) Loss of Income during 5000 x 4 = 20,000 treatment Medical Expenses 5490 Pain and Suffering, Rs. 40,000/- Special Diet, Attendant Charges & Conveyance Artificial Hand Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 6,61,690/-

9. Yet dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. The significant points of

challenge are as follows:

a. As per the certificate issued by PW2, he has suffered 60% permanent

disability, leading to 100% functional disability as he is unable to undertake

his occupation as a labourer.

b. His income should be ascertained more than Rs.5000/-, as the minimum

wage itself was Rs.6,850/- in 2016.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. We are unable to agree with

the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the Appellant and

the functional disability suffered by him. At the outset, we must refer to the

exposition of this Court in Gurpreet Kaur and Ors. v. United India Insurance

3 Company Ltd. and Ors.1, wherein it was stated the notifications under the

Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor in cases where there is no evidence

available to evaluate monthly income.

11. Adverting to the facts at hand, the minimum wage prevalent in the area for

unskilled workers was Rs.6850/-, annexed as Annexure P1. In view of the above

exposition of this Court, we are inclined to accept this submission of the Appellant.

On the aspect of his functional disability, this Court recognises that due to the

amputation of his right hand, his ability to work as a labourer would be significantly

hampered. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to increase

the percentage of functional disability to 80%.

12. As a result of the discussion above, the compensation now payable to the Claimant-

Appellant is itemised as under:

FINAL COMPENSATION

Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with:

Monthly Income Rs.6,850/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Yearly Income 6850 x 12 = Rs.82,200/- v. Pranay Sethi Future Prospects (40%) Rs.32,880/- (2017) 16 SCC 680 Multiplier (17) 1,15,080 x 17 = Rs.20,71,440/- Para 42 & 59 Permanent Disability (80%) Rs.16,57,152/- Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/- Kajal v. Jagdish Chand Attendant Charges 6850 x 17 = Rs.1,16,450/- (2020) 4 SCC 413 Para 19 and 25 Special Diet & Transportation Rs.40,000/- Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439 Para 89 Pain and Suffering Rs.2,00,000/- K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14 Loss of Income during treatment Rs.6850/- Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar

1 2022 SCC Online SC 1778

4 (2011) 1 SCC 343 Para 6 Artificial Hand Rs.25,000/- - TOTAL Rs.20,55,452/-

Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:

MACT High Court This Court Rs.3,76,090/- Rs.6,61,690/- Rs.20,55,452/-

13.The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned Award dated 21st

June, 2021 passed in Claim Case No.1200314 of 2016 by the 4 th Additional

Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore as modified in terms of the

impugned order, stands further modified to the above extent. Interest is to be paid

as awarded by the Tribunal.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………...……………J. (SANJAY KAROL)

…………………………………….J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA) New Delhi;

February 7, 2025.

5