Mohammed Masood vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd

2025 INSC 1179 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12567/2024

MOHAMMED MASOOD …Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

N.V. Anjaria

Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. The present appeal preferred by the original

claimant is directed against the judgment and order

dated 23.01.2020 of the High Court of Karnataka in

M.F.A. No.2903 of 2018 (MV), whereby the High Court

allowed in part the appeal of the insurance company, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD reducing the amount of compensation, and giving Date: 2025.09.26 18:33:29 IST Reason:

consequential directions.

Page 1 of 8 3. The facts briefly stated are inter alia that the

appellant-claimant suffered serious injuries in the

vehicular accident which took place on 01.12.2015.

He was a loader in the lorry travelling from Kunigal to

Nelamangala. At about 2.50 a.m. near NH-75 Road,

the said lorry driven at a high speed and in negligent

manner, dashed with an unknown ongoing vehicle.

The appellant sustained injuries in the right leg and

his leg was required to be amputated below the knee.

A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed before the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Tribunal’) seeking compensation of

Rs.35,00,000/-

3.1 While assessing the compensation for the 23

years injured appellant, the took the monthly income

of the appellant-claimant to be Rs.9,000/- at the time

of the accident. However, the claimant (PW-1) asserted

his monthly wages to be Rs.15,600/. Because of

amputation of the right leg, the medical evidence

registered that the disability of the left lower limb was

Page 2 of 8 70%. The Tribunal took the disability for the whole

body to be 85%. Multiplier of 18 was applied to

calculate the compensation. The final compensation

totalling Rs.19,35,400/- was awarded.

3.2 The different heads under which the amounts

were awarded, as under,

Pain and sufferings 50,000/-

Food and attendant charges 48,000/-

Future loss of income 16,52,400/- Loss of enjoyment of life 50,000/- Conveyance charges 10,000/- Future medical treatment 1,00,000/-

Loss of marriage prospects 25,000/-

Total Rs. 19,35,400/-

3.3 Against the aforesaid judgment and award of

the Tribunal, the insurance company preferred an

appeal before the High Court. The High Court took a

different view in respect of the income of the injured-

appellant to take it to be Rs.8,000/- instead of

Rs.9,000/- taken by Tribunal.

3.4 The High Court was of the view that since

under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 the

Page 3 of 8 maximum income that could be considered is

Rs.8,000/- the said figure should have been adopted

towards the income of the injured appellant. It was

observed by the High Court as under, extracting from

paragraph 10,

“Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the claimant was aged about 23 years; though he has contended that he was earning Rs.16,500/- per month, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the maximum income that could be considered is only Rs.8,000/- per month. Since this is a case of injury, only 60% of that should be considered for calculating the compensation, which comes to Rs.4,800/- per month. In that the compensation is required to be considered taking into account the percentage of disability that he has suffered. In the instant case, the doctor who has treated the claimant has adduced evidence indicating that the claimant has suffered the disability to an extent of 85%. If the evidence of the doctor is accepted, then the compensation that the claimant would be entitled to is on the basis of the factor which is applicable to the case on hand, i.e., 219.95”

3.5 Consequentially, as per the calculation

provided in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment,

the compensation was reduced by the High Court

from 19,35,400/- to 10,41,022/-.

4. In the present appeal, the appellant-claimant

has raised two contentions. Firstly that the High

Court committed an error in taking the income with

Page 4 of 8 reference to the Workmen’s Compensation Act,

thereby reducing the figure of income which was

considered and applied by the Tribunal. In this

regard, the appellant relied on the decision of this

Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs.

Mastan and Anr.1.

4.1 The second contention was in respect of not

adding future prospects in arriving at the total

compensation. It was submitted that the addition of

40% of the established income should have been

granted when the injured was below 40 years in the

light of the decision in National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Pranay Sethi2.

5. The first limb of submission has substance.

The appellant chose to file a claim petition for

compensation in respect of injuries he suffered in the

accident. After consent by the parties, the Tribunal

adjudicated the same and assessed the income to be

Rs.9,000/- per month to calculate the amount of

1 (2006) 2 SCC 641 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

Page 5 of 8 compensation accordingly. The Tribunal having

determined the compensation on that basis, the High

Court misdirected itself in applying the criteria under

the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,

1923 to take the view that the income of the appellant-

claimant was liable to be considered at Rs.8,000/-.

The High Court consequently reduced the

compensation.

5.1 It was not permissible in law for the High

Court to apply the parameters under Workmen’s

Compensation Act, 1923 regarding fixing of income

when the compensation was assessed and fixed by the

Tribunal in a claim petition under Section 166 of the

M.V. Act by applying principles under the said Act.

5.2 In Mastan & Anr. (supra)1, this Court

observed,

“Section 167 of the 1988 Act statutorily provides for an option to the claimant stating that where the death of or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under the 1988 Act as also the 1923 Act, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. Section 167 contains a non obstante clause providing for such an option

Page 6 of 8 notwithstanding anything contained in the 1923 Act.” (Para 22)

The issue stand answered by this Court in Mastan &

Anr. (supra)1, which held that once the remedy under

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was elected to be

pursued by the claimant and the Tribunal adjudicated

the compensation by applying the criteria and fixing

the income, falling back upon the parameters under

the Workmen’s Compensation Act, was not

permissible. The insurer could not have raised such a

defence seeking to apply the provisions of Workmen’s

Compensation Act. Both the remedies are different.

6. In the aforesaid view, the reasons supplied

by the High Court in paragraph 10 and consequential

reduction in the compensation could not be

permitted to stand. The compensation awarded by

the Tribunal on the basis of income of Rs.9,000/-has

to be restored.

6.1 As far as ground of non-adding of ‘future

prospects’ raised by the appellant is concerned, it

would not be permissible for this Court to go into it

Page 7 of 8 and entertain the same in view that the appellant did

not file any appeal to challenge the judgment and

order of the Tribunal. It was the insurance company

who approached the High Court.

6.2 Accordingly, the judgment and order of the

High Court dated 23.01.2020 in M.F.A. No.2903 of

2018 is set aside. The impugned judgment and award

of the Tribunal stands restored.

7. The present appeal is allowed accordingly.

………………………………….. J.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN

…..…………………………….. J.

N.V. ANJARIA

NEW DELHI;

September 26, 2025

Page 8 of 8