Ramar vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

2025 INSC 1218 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. _ ___ of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.7840 of 2020)

Ramar ….Appellant Versus

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

.…Respondents

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The above appeal is filed from the order of the High

Court, which modified the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal and reduced it from Rs.31,80,350/- to Rs.20,65,000/-.

Notice was issued only on the issue of computation of the

monthly income and attendant charges.

3. The accident occurred on 05.01.2013, while the

petitioner was standing by the side of the road when a lorry Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

driven rashly and negligently hit the petitioner. Suffice, it to POOJA SHARMA Date: 2025.10.11 15:09:07 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.7840 of 2020

notice that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and his

right leg was amputated from the thigh and his left leg was

crushed, paralyzing it. A functional disability of 100% was

assessed by the Doctor who was examined before the

Tribunal. PW4, the Doctor who treated the claimant was

examined, which oral evidence coupled with the hospital

records produced as Ex. P1, P5 and X7 proved the amputation

of the right leg and the crush injury caused to the left leg,

beyond doubt. PW5 was the Doctor who deposed on the 100%

disability caused by the amputation of the right leg and the

paralysis caused to the left leg.

4. The Tribunal took the income of the petitioner at

Rs.11,000/- per month and awarded a total compensation of

Rs.17,16,000/-, applying the multiplier of 13. The High Court,

however, reduced the same to Rs.6,500/- finding that in a

similar circumstance in Syed Sadiq Etc. v. Divisional

Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited1, this

Court had adopted such income alone. Addition of 25% in

1 (2014) 2 SCC 735

Page 2 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.7840 of 2020 accordance with National Insurance Company v. Pranay

Sethi2 was also granted, thus determining compensation for

loss of income at Rs.14, 62,500/-.

5. One of the issues on which notice was issued was the

determination of monthly income. We notice that Syed Sadiq1

was a case in which there was no evidence led regarding the

income, in which circumstance this Court had adopted an

income of Rs.6,500/- for a vegetable vendor that too in the year

2008. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year

2014 and the claimants’ contention was that the deceased was

a loading and unloading worker engaged by PW6, who

testified that the petitioner would earn between Rs.600 to

1000/- per day. PW7 was a person working along with him as

a loading unloading worker, who also spoke in tandem with

PW6. Even if we accept the maximum of the daily wages as

spoken of by PW6, it is evident that the total monthly wages

claimed is only for 15 days work, i.e., Rs.15,000/-. Considering

the overall circumstances, we are of the opinion that the

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

Page 3 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.7840 of 2020 income adopted at Rs.11,000/- by the Tribunal is perfectly in

order. The compensation for loss of future income and that for

income during treatment period has to be retained as awarded

by the Tribunal.

6. However, we have to notice that there is no appeal filed

from the order of the Tribunal by the claimant, despite the fact

that he had a claim for future prospects, which stood declined

by the Tribunal. The High Court had while reducing the

income considerably awarded future prospects at the rate of

25%. The further appeal now filed by the claimant is against

the order of the High Court in the appeal by the Insurance

Company. The appellant hence cannot claim any further

enhancement than that granted by the Tribunal, nor seek for

addition of future prospects.

7. The further contention is with respect to attendant

charges, which the Tribunal had adopted on the basis of the

minimum wages for an unskilled worker computed for 13

years; being the multiplier applied. The High Court had

reduced it to Rs.1,50,000/-. We are of the opinion that neither

the Tribunal was correct in computing the attendant charges Page 4 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.7840 of 2020 on the basis of a regular attendant employed, nor had the

High Court offered any reasoning in arriving at Rs.1,50,000/.

However, considering the fact that the petitioner has lost use

of his lower limbs, the attendant charges could be computed

at Rs.3,00,000/-.

8. Details of modified compensation read as follows:

Compensation for Loss of Rs.17,16,000/- Income Future medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/-

For attendant charges Rs.3,00,000/ For pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- For loss of amenities and Rs.65,000/- happiness For loss of income during Rs.55,000/- treatment period For transport expenses Rs.25,000/- For extra nourishment Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.24,86,500/-

9. With the above modifications on the determination of

monthly income, and attendant charges, we are partially

restoring the order of the Tribunal, retaining the amounts

awarded by the High Court on the other heads.

Page 5 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.7840 of 2020

10. The appeal stands partly allowed with the above-said

modifications. The awarded amounts shall be paid after

deduction of any amounts already paid with interest @ 7.5%

as directed by the Tribunal, commencing from the date of

application within a period of three weeks.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…….…………..………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

…….…………..………………. J.

(N.V. ANJARIA)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 26, 2025.

Page 6 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.7840 of 2020