R. Logeshkumar vs P. Balasubramaniam

NON-REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 1392 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025 (@ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 4845 of 2025)

R. LOGESHKUMAR … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

P. BALASUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises from the order dated 20.06.2022 in CMA (MD) No.

3343 of 2014 on the file of the Madras High Court, filed by the

Appellant/Claimant for enhancing the compensation of Rs.3,98,017/-

(Rupees three lakh ninety-eight thousand and seventeen) awarded by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in the Court of III Small Causes, Chennai

(“the Tribunal”) to Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh).

3. The Appellant’s case is that on 26.01.2012, he was riding a two-wheeler

bearing Registration No. TN 22 AU 0784 from Selaiyur to Medavakkam

towards the east. At Kamarajapuram junction, a jeep bearing Registration No.

TN 22 BL 7032 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite

direction without sounding a horn and hit the Appellant’s motorcycle. The Signature Not Verified

accident resulted in grievous injuries to the Appellant. The said jeep was Digitally signed by CHETAN ARORA Date: 2025.12.06 11:16:21 IST Reason:

owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent,

1 Insurance Company. The Appellant filed a claim petition, claiming a sum of

Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakh) as compensation in MCOP No. 2672 of

2013 on the file of the Tribunal.

4. The appeal is filed for the enhancement of compensation awarded by

the Tribunal and for the award of the claimed compensation. Therefore, the

averments and the evidence on the admitted position are not adverted to as

part of the narrative of the case. At the time of the accident, the Appellant was

stated to be 21 years of age and was working as an accounts assistant,

earning a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month. The Claimant examined

himself as PW1. The doctors who treated the Appellant, Dr. Kalkura and Dr.

Saichandran, were examined as PW2 and PW3, respectively. The Tribunal

marked 16 documents on the side of the Appellant. No oral or documentary

evidence was placed from the side of the Respondents.

5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,98,017/- (Rupees three lakh

ninety-eight thousand and seventeen) with interest at 7.5% per annum. The

Claimant filed CMA (MD) No. 3343 of 2014 seeking enhancement of

compensation. The High Court has taken note of the oral evidence of PW2 and

PW3, and the extent of disability the first Appellant suffered in the accident.

The High Court, through the impugned Judgment, redetermined the

compensation. For a quick grasp of the scope of the appeal, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court is stated as follows:

Heads The Tribunal (Rs.) HC (Rs.) Transport to Hospital 10,000/- 10,000/- Extra Nourishment 15,000/- 15,000/- Damage to clothing 1,000/- 1,000/- Medical Expenses 60,617/- 60,617/- Attender Charges 6,000/- 6,000/- Loss of Amenities 5,000/- 5,000/-

2 Pain and Suffering 30,000/- 30,000/- Loss in marital and 10,000/- 10,000/- social status

Loss of Earnings due to 2,30,400/- (Rs. 6,000 x 12,48,000/- (Rs 6500 x Functional Disability. 12 x 16 x 20%) 12 x 16 x 100%) Future Medical Nil 80,000/-

Expenses Total = Rs.3,98,017/- (7.5%) Rs.14,65,617/- (7.5%)

6. The High Court, as part of its consideration of functional disability, held

that the Appellant suffered from hemiparesis, disfigurement and brain

injuries leading to a 100% loss of earnings due to functional disability. The

finding further recorded that the Claimant had not produced any supporting

evidence to prove his salary at Rs. 9,000/- per month. The High Court, relying

on Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance

Company Limited,1 held that the Claimant cannot be expected to produce

documents to prove his monthly income and fixed his monthly income at Rs.

6,500/-. The High Court, thus, enhanced the head – “Loss of Earning due to

Functional Disability” – to Rs. 12,48,000/- by increasing his income by Rs.

500/- and considering his Functional Disability as 100%.

7. Hence, the appeal for further enhancement of compensation.

8. We have heard Mr. T. Harish Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellant,

and Mr. Vishal Meghwal, learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company.

9. The Appellant claims enhancement of compensation under the

following heads:

1 (2014) 2 SCC 735.

3 a. Future Prospects are not taken note of and added to the monthly

salary arrived at by the High Court.

b. From the injuries suffered by the Appellant, he cannot be

expected to live independently, and a reasonable attendant

allowance to make life smooth should have been granted.

c. The claimant is entitled to reimbursement of actual medical

expenses of Rs. 1,08,000/-.

10. The insurance company opposes the enhancement on the ground that,

irrespective of the heads, the compensation awarded by the High Court is just

and fair. We have taken note of the submissions and perused the record. The

probable loss of monthly income of the Appellant has been arrived at by

applying the correct principle of law.

11. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others,2 this Court held that there

is no restriction on the Tribunal in awarding compensation exceeding the

claimed amount under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the function of the

Tribunal is to award just compensation which is reasonable based on the

evidence produced on record. Keeping in view the above ratio, in a given case,

the discretion to award compensation in excess of the amount claimed in the

petition is based on the evidence on record and for reasons recorded for

granting just and fair compensation. Taking note of the loss of monthly

income, we deem it appropriate to add 1/3rd of the salary as the future loss of

income, totalling to Rs 8667/-. The Appellant further claims a lump sum to

meet the expenses of an attender, enabling him to attend to his regular

household chores and functions. We keep in our perspective the age of the

2 2003 (2) SCC 271.

4 Appellant (21 years) during the incident and the requirement of a personal

attendant, and award a lump sum of Rs. 3,00,000/. Over and above the loss

of income arrived at by this Judgment and the High Court, the Appellant

claims reimbursement of medical expenses said to have been incurred while

undergoing treatment in the hospital. The Appellant did not bring evidence

on the amount spent on this behalf before the Tribunal. The evidence is

introduced as additional evidence before the High Court, and the High Court,

for reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, has not accepted this claim.

We wish not to express a view on the entitlement under this head, but by

taking the totality of circumstances, and the further enhancement granted by

this Judgment, the claim under this head is rejected.

12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to award

the Appellant, a just and fair compensation amounting to Rs 21,75,681/-

(Rupees Twenty One seventy-five thousand six hundred and eighty-one), and

is determined as follows:

Heads HC (Rs.) This Court (Rs.) Transport to Hospital 10,000/- 10,000/- Extra Nourishment 15,000/- 15,000/- Damage to clothing 1,000/- 1,000/- Medical Expenses 60,617 60,617 Loss of Amenities 5,000/- 5,000/- Pain and Suffering 30,000/- 30,000/- Loss in marital and 10,000/- 10,000/- social status Attender Charges 6,000/- 3,00,000/-

Loss of Earnings due to 12,48,000/- (Rs 6500 x 16,64,064/- [Rs 8667 Functional Disability. 12 x 16 x 100%) (future prospects) x 12 x 16 x 100%] Future Medical 80,000/- 80,000/-

Expenses Total = Rs.14,65,617/- (7.5%) Rs.21,75,681/- (7.5%)

5

13. The difference amount payable (from Rs. 21,75,681/-), over and above

the amount already paid, will carry an interest of 7.5% from the date of filing

the claim petition.

14. The Civil Appeal is allowed in part. The deficit court fee is to be

deposited before the Tribunal within six weeks from today. There is no order

as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

……….…………………J [K.V. VISWANATHAN]

..…………………………J [S.V.N. BHATTI] New Delhi;

December 5, 2025

6