Riyas vs P. N. Shinosh

2025 INSC 1303 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6544 OF 2024

RIYAS ….Appellant (s)

VERSUS

P. N. SHINOSH & ANR. ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Seeking enhancement in the motor accident

compensation, the present appeal is directed against the

judgment and award dated 7th January, 2020 passed by

the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam in MACA No. 89 of

2009.

Signature Not Verified

2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, Digitally signed by BORRA LM VALLI Date: 2025.11.10 17:11:20 IST Reason:

upon an application filed by the injured-claimants under

Page 1 of 10 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, awarded a total

compensation of Rs. 1,73,000/- together with interest @

7% p.a. In the appeal, the High Court enhanced it

awarding additional compensation of Rs. 5,75,883/- with

interest. Further enhancement is pleaded.

3. The case pertains to a 14 years old minor student,

who was studying in 7th standard and suffered 77.1%

permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained

by him in the motor accident. The accident took place on

19.04.2002 at about 12.15 pm. The appellant was

travelling with other persons in an auto rickshaw bearing

registration No. KL-9K-1413. The said auto rickshaw was

hit by a lorry bearing No. KRR-6987. The lorry was owned

by respondent No. 1, was driven by respondent No.2, and

was insured with respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.

3.1 The Claims Tribunal concluded that the

accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving

by the driver of the lorry. The insurance coverage of the

said offending vehicle was not in dispute. The insurer was

held liable to indemnify the injured with compensation,

Page 2 of 10 which was assessed by the Tribunal to be Rs. 1,73,000/-

along with interest. Having been of the view that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various

heads was low, the High Court proceeded to enhance the

same.

3.2 While enhancing the compensation of the

appellant from the one awarded by the Tribunal, the High

Court applied multiplier of 15. As regards the extent of

disability arising out of the injuries sustained, the High

Court noted that as per the disability certificate dated

20.11.2019 the disability for the whole body which was

assessed by the Medical Board was 77.1%. The permanent

disability to the said extent was accepted by the

Government Pleader by filing a memo dated 25.11.2019.

The Insurance Company also did not raise any objection

to the extent disability assessed.

3.3 The monthly income for the injured was taken as

Rs. 3,620/-. After adding the future prospects at 40%,

applying multiplier of 15 and accounting for the

percentage of permanent disability, the additional

Page 3 of 10 compensation was arrived at to be Rs. 4,12,383/-. The

bystander expenses awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.

2,750/- which was enhanced to Rs. 3,300/- by the High

Court. An additional amount of Rs. 700/- from Rs. 2,200/-

to Rs. 1,500/- was awarded towards extra nourishment.

The High Court determined the medical expenses to be Rs.

53,250/- solely on the basis of the medical bills (Ext. A10).

Rs.30,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. The

amount towards loss of amenities was enhanced to Rs.

80,000/- from Rs. 8,000/. Rs. 50,000/- was granted

towards loss of marriage prospects and a further sum of

Rs. 25,000/- towards future treatment, which amount was

not to carry interest. All the above sums made to the total

additional compensation of Rs. 5,75,883/- with 8%

interest.

3.4 In the process of determining the

compensation as above, the High Court applied relevant

parameters including the law laid down by this Court

in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National

Page 4 of 10 Insurance Co. Ltd.1. In the said case this Court laid down

the principles regarding payment of compensation for the

injuries sustained by the children resulting into

permanent disability.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker,

appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.

Varinder Kumar Sharma, for the respondent.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and before considering the rival submission, question

of enhancement of the compensation needs to be

favourably addressed. In that, a recent decision of this

Court dated 11.02.2025 in Sona (minor) vs. Manual

C.M.2 would serve as a guiding precedent. The facts in

Sona (minor) (supra) were akin to the facts of the present

case. The minor aged about 1½ years suffered serious

injuries including the brain haemorrhage and fracture of

the vertical linear skull in the accident. The victim suffered

from the Hemiplegia resulting into 75% permanent

1 (2014) 14 SCC 396 2 Civil Appeal No. 002316 of 2025

Page 5 of 10 disability. This Court applied the parameters laid down in

the various decisions of this Court to assess the

compensation under various heads.

5.1 Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, the

injured minor was 14 years of age and as laid down in the

decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs.

Pranay Sethi & Others3, the High Court rightly applied

the multiplier of 15. The assessment of monthly income of

Rs. 3,620/- is reasonable. 40% is added towards future

prospects and applying the multiplier of 15, it brings the

amount of Rs. 9,12,240/-. Multiplying this amount with

the extent of disability which is 77.1%, the amount of

compensation to be awarded on the said score comes to

Rs. 7,03,337.04/-.

5.2 While awarding the medical expenses to the

appellant, the High Court has taken the basis of the actual

bills, overlooking that the appellant would have incurred

miscellaneous amounts towards the medical treatment

3 (2017) 16 SCC 680

Page 6 of 10 during his 22 days stay in the hospital, over and above the

actual bills in the nature of out-of-pocket expenses.

Furthermore, the appellant would be required to spent

towards the medical treatment in future also. Taking into

account such considerations, granting Rs. 50,000/- in

total towards medical expenses would be proper.

5.3 Furthermore, the appellant would be entitled

to the compensation towards the attendant charges which

is assessed to be Rs. 40,000/-. Under the head of loss of

marriage prospects, Rs. 3 lakhs deserves to be awarded.

This is in light of the parameters laid down by this Court

in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand4. The amount of Rs. 40,000/-

towards special diet and transportation is awarded, in view

of what is laid down in Sidram v. Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Ltd.5. In the same way on the

basis of law laid down by this Court in K.S. Muralidhar v.

R. Subbulakshmi & Anr.6, the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs is

awarded towards pain and suffering. Towards loss of

4 (2020) 4 SCC 413 (Para 19 and 25) 5 (2023) 3 SCC 439 (Para 89) 6 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 (Para 13 and 14)

Page 7 of 10 amenities, the High Court awarded a just sum of Rs.

80,000/- after considering the nature of injuries and the

disabilities.

5.4 Now translating in the tabular form the total

compensation as assessed above, the amounts payable

shall be as under;

Loss of future earnings Income – 3,620/-

or towards disability Annual Income – 3,620 x 12 =

43,440/-

43,440 + 40% (17,376) =

60,816/-

60,816 x 15 = 9,12,240/-

9,12,240 x 77.1% = Rs.

7,03,337.04/-

Pain and suffering 3,00,000/-

Loss of Amenities 80,000/-

Attendant charges 40,000/-

Loss of marriage 3,00,000/-

prospect

Page 8 of 10 Special diet and 40,000/-

transportation

Future Medical 50,000/-

Expenses

TOTAL 15,13,337.04/-

6. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant would be

entitled to total compensation of Rs. 15,13,337/- as

rounded of. Resultantly, additional compensation of Rs.

7,64,454/- shall be paid to the appellant with interest at

the same rate of 8% from date of filing of application till

realisation.

6.1 The respondent No. 3-Insurance Company is

directed to pay the additional compensation amount along

with interest as above to the appellant by crediting the

same in the bank account of the appellant within a period

of 8 weeks from today. The acknowledgement/proof of

payment to the appellant shall be produced before the

Tribunal within one week from payment made as above.

Page 9 of 10

7. The impugned judgement and award of the High

Court is modified as above. The appeal stands allowed

accordingly.

In view of disposal of the Appeal, Interlocutory

application, if any, stands disposed of.

………………………………….. J.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN

…..…………………………….. J.

N.V. ANJARIA

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 10, 2025

Page 10 of 10