Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi vs Abdul Munaf

2025 INSC 191 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2322 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.21766 of 2024)

NUR AHAMAD ABDULSAB KANAVI … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

ABDUL MUNAF & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

Time taken for disposal Time taken for disposal Time taken for disposal of the claim petition by of the appeal by the of the appeal in this MACT High Court Court 5 years 2 years 6 months 5 months

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th August,

2023 in MFA No.100308/2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka,

Dharwad Bench, which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order

dated 4th December, 2020 passed in MVC No.111/2015 by the Addl. Senior

Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hangal.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 24 th June, 2014, the RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2025.02.11 18:47:28 IST Reason:

driver of the offending goods vehicle bearing No.KA-16/A-6260, while driving rashly and negligently, dashed into the Claimant-Appellant, aged 27 years, who

was travelling on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-02/EC-3487 from Kashambi

village. Upon collision, the Claimant-Appellant sustained injuries and, as such,

was taken to SDM Hospital, Dharwad, where he was treated and remained

admitted for two months completely bedridden.

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

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-

with cost and interest @18% per annum from the date of accident till

realisation, submitting therein that he was working as a Goundy and earning

more than Rs.10,000/- per month before the accident and was the sole

breadwinner of his family. After the incident, due to mental and physical

suffering, he is not in a position to do any work.

5. The Tribunal, by its judgment and order, directed the Insurance Company

to pay an amount of Rs.6,78,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from

the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal considered the

monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant to be Rs.7,500/- per month and the

permanent disability to be 20%.

6. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the

Claimant-Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the

disability has been incorrectly assessed at 20% by the Tribunal, while the

Appellant has actually suffered 100% functional disability. Furthermore, his

monthly income should have been taken as Rs.10,000/-.

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

to the Claimant-Appellant with an additional sum of Rs.18,90,938/-. The High

Court enhanced the percentage of disability suffered to 100%, and as such, the

compensation awarded by the High Court was as under:

CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION

Monthly Income Rs.7,500/-

Yearly Income 7500 X 12 = Rs.9,00,000/-

Future Prospects (40%) Rs.10,500/- per month Multiplier (17) 84,000 X 17 = Rs.14,28,000/-

Permanent Disability (100%) Rs.21,42,000/-

Special Diet Rs.50,000/- Loss of Amenities Rs.30,000/- Loss of Income during Rs.45,000/- treatment Medical Expenses Rs.1,96,938/- Pain and Suffering Rs.75,000/- Total Rs.25,68,938/-

8. Yet dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. He submits that

his salary ought to have been taken as Rs.10,000/- per month.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are unable to agree

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

Appellant. This Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav1 had placed

1 (2022) 1 SCC 198 reliance on the statement of the deceased’s wife therein to establish the income

of the person. Similarly, in the absence of any material to discard the oral

evidence of PW1 Wife, we deem it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the

Claimant-Appellant as Rs.10,000/-.

10. 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.10,000/- Yearly Income 10000 X 12 = Rs.1,20,000/- National Insurance Future Prospects (40%) 1,20,000 + 48,000 = Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Rs.1,68,000/- Sethi Multiplier (17) 1,68,000 X 13 = (2017) 16 SCC 680 Rs.28,56,000/- Para 42 & 59 Permanent Disability 28,56,000 X 100% = (100%) Rs. 28,56,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.2,00,000/- Kajal v. Jagdish Chand Attendant Charges 10,000 x 17 = Rs.1,70,000/- (2020) 4 SCC 413 Para 19 and 25 Special Diet & Rs.50,000/- Sidram v. Transportation Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439 Para 89 Pain and Suffering Rs.4,00,000/- K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14 Loss of Income during Rs.45,000/- Raj treatment Kumar v. Ajay Kumar Loss of Amenities Rs.30,000/- (2011) 1 SCC 343 Para 6 TOTAL Rs.37,51,000/-

Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:

MACT High Court This Court Rs.6,78,000/- Rs.25,68,938/- Rs.37,51,000/-

11. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned award

dated 4th December, 2020 passed in MVC No.111/2015 by the Addl. Senior

Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hangal, as modified vide the impugned order,

stands further modified in terms of the above. 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) February 11, 2025;

New Delhi.