Kavin vs P. Sreemani Devi

2025 INSC 1028 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023

KAVIN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS P. SREEMANI DEVI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by of the road. As a result of the said accident, various passengers Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.08.22 17:50:13 IST

suffered grievous injuries. Insofar as the claimant is concerned, he Reason:

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 1

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

under various heads including medical expenses, future prospects, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 2 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. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 3 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

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. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 4 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.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 5

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 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.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 6 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 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 7 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 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 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 8 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 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 9 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 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 10 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

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,

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 11 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.

…………………………....J. [N. V. ANJARIA]

…………………………....J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 22, 2025.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 12