M. Seetharama @ Seetharama Gowda vs The Manager Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.
- Neutral2025 INSC 648
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When assessing compensation for loss of future income in motor accident claims involving permanent disability, the court must: (1) determine the injured person's actual income by reference to contemporary wage standards for the relevant class of worker, applying incremental increases as established in precedent; (2) apply the assessed percentage of disability to that income; and (3) additionally apply a percentage for loss of future prospects (in this case 40%) to account for the claimant's reduced earning capacity over the remainder of the working life, calculated over the appropriate period and multiplied by 12 for monthly computation. Medical expenses actually proved by documentary evidence must be awarded in full, with an additional composite amount for ancillary claims such as special diet, conveyance and attendant charges that are not separately substantiated by bills. Compensation for pain and suffering in cases of severe permanent disability such as amputation must reflect the overall suffering endured, including the nature and extent of injuries and their functional impact, and is not limited by the amounts awarded by lower courts where those amounts do not adequately compensate for the gravity of the injury.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No…………..of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.14543 of 2023)
M. SEETHARAMA @ SEETHARAMA GOWDA
.…APPELLANT VERSUS
THE MANAGER FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. .…RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E NT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was injured in an accident which
occurred on 25.06.2015 when the bike he was riding
collided with a jeep. The FIR was registered against the
jeep driver who was driving on the right side at high
speed as also rashly and negligently. The appellant
having suffered multiple injuries was taken to a local Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.05.08 16:11:30 IST Reason: Page 1 of 6 CA @SLP(C) No. 14543 of 2023 hospital where he was discharged after first aid and
then admitted to a specialist hospital where he spent
one and a half months. The appellant produced medical
bills and also asserted an income of Rs.12,000/- per
month. The appellant was aged 38 years and he suffered
Syme’s amputation. The Tribunal awarded a total amount
of Rs. 6,60,000/- under various heads which was
increased by the High Court to Rs.12,65,000/-.
3. Compensation under different heads as awarded
by the High Court: -
Sr. No. Heads of Claim Amount 1. Loss of income. Rs.8,10,000/- Rs.9000 x 12 x 15 x 50% 2. Medical expenses. Rs.1,90,000/-
3. Loss of income during laid Rs. 45,000/-
up period.
4. Loss of amenities. Rs. 75,000/-
5. Future medical expenses. Rs.25,000/-
6. Pain and suffering. Rs.1,20,000/-
Total amount Rs.12,65,000/-
Page 2 of 6 CA @SLP(C) No. 14543 of 2023
4. The High Court had confirmed the order of the
Tribunal which awarded an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- for
pain and suffering. As is evident from the order of the
Tribunal, the appellant suffered multiple injuries and
had a fracture in the right femur, right clavicle, right
tibia and fibula with vascular compromise. Considering
the over-all suffering as also the amputation which was
at the ankle joint, preserving the heel pad to allow for
weight bearing; which is what a Syme’s amputation is,
the compensation for pain and suffering can be
increased to Rs. 1,50,000/-.
5. As far as medical expenses, despite producing
bills for Rs. 1,86,486/-, the Tribunal and the High Court
only awarded an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/; including for
special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. This
Court is of the opinion that the medical bills proved has
to be granted in full and for special diet, conveyance
Page 3 of 6 CA @SLP(C) No. 14543 of 2023 and attendant charges a composite amount of Rs.
30,000/- can be awarded.
6. For loss of future income, the Tribunal adopted an
income of Rs. 7,000/- which was enhanced to Rs. 9,000/-
by the High Court. Ramachandrappa v. Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.1, (supra) was a
case in which even a coolie’s income was determined at
Rs. 4,500/- in the year 2004. As has been held in Pranay
Sethi2, there can be an incremental increase for every
year which at the least will be at Rs.500/- for every
successive year. Taking that into account, the salary of
an unskilled worker will be Rs.10,000/- in the year 2015
when the accident occurred. The claimant had
produced income certificate and PW3 was examined to
prove the same. The Tribunal, however, disbelieved
PW3. But, in any event, the income of the injured can be
fixed at Rs. 10,000/-. When assessing his loss of income
1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 4 of 6 CA @SLP(C) No. 14543 of 2023 for 50% disability, as held by the High Court,
necessarily, 40% for future prospects has to be added.
We find no reason to increase the percentage of
disability as assessed by the Doctor. The amounts
granted will be as under:-
Sr. No. Heads of Claim Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000/- 2. Medical expenses. Rs.1,86,486/-
3. Special diet, conveyance and Rs.30,000/-
attendant charges.
4. Loss of amenities. Rs.10,000/-
5. Loss of future income. Rs. 12,60,000/-
Rs. 10,000/- x 140% x 12 x 15 x 50%
6. Future medical expenses. Rs. 25,000/-
7. Loss of income during Rs. 45,000/-
hospitalization.
Total amount Rs.17,06,486/-
7. The awarded amounts shall be paid within a
period of two months from today with interest @ 9% per
annum and whatever amounts have already been paid
Page 5 of 6 CA @SLP(C) No. 14543 of 2023 shall be deducted. The appellant shall provide the bank
account details to the Insurance Company who shall
transfer the amount online within the period specified
hereinabove.
8. The Appeal stands allowed with the above
directions.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
…………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN] NEW DELHI;
MAY 08, 2025.
Page 6 of 6 CA @SLP(C) No. 14543 of 2023
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free