S. Mohammed Hakkim vs National Insurance Co. Ltd

REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 905 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S)._______________ OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 28062-63 OF 2023]

S. MOHAMMED HAKKIM …APPELLANT(S)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court challenging the impugned order

dated 11.11.2022, whereby the Madras High Court reduced the

compensation awarded to the appellant in a motor accident case from

Rs. 73,29,653/-to Rs.58,53,447/-.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) On 07.01.2017, when the appellant was riding on a motorcycle

along with his friend on the pillion, respondent no.2 suddenly

applied the brakes of his car, which was ahead of the appellant’s

Signature Not Verified motorcycle, and the appellant dashed his motorcycle into the Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.07.29

rear side of the car and fell on the right side of the road. The bus 17:44:44 IST Reason:

coming from behind drove over the appellant, which finally led to 1 the accident resulting in the amputation of appellant’s left leg

during treatment. The car and the bus were insured by

respondent no.3 and respondent no.1, respectively.

(b) The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) seeking

compensation of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- in which Tribunal calculated

a compensation of Rs.91,62,066/-. However, since it was held

that there was 20% contributory negligence on the part of the

appellant, Rs.73,29,653/- were made payable to the appellant by

respondent no.1 (insurer of bus). The car insurer was exonerated

from all liabilities.

(c) Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, both the respondent no.1

(insurer of bus) and the appellant approached the High Court.

Vide impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the appeal

filed by respondent no.1 by reducing the attendant’s charges

from Rs.18 lacs to Rs.5 lacs and by fixing liability of car driver,

bus driver and the appellant as 40%, 30% and 30% respectively.

The cross-objection filed by appellant was also partly allowed by

granting him Rs. 5 lacs under the head of future medical

expenses. Consequently, the High Court reduced the payable

compensation from Rs. 73,29,653/- to Rs. 58,53,447/- along

with interest. Now, the appellant is before us.

2

4. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

5. First on the question of contributory negligence of the appellant and

negligence on the part of the drivers of the other two vehicles involved

in the accident. The Tribunal, as well as the High Court, have

affirmed that the accident occurred due to the sudden stoppage of

the car. However, it was the view of the Tribunal that if the bus had

not been involved in the accident, the appellant would have suffered

normal injuries, and it was mainly the negligence of the bus driver

that led to the amputation of the appellant’s leg. The Tribunal also

relied on Rule 231 of the Road Regulation Rules 1989 and put

contributory negligence of 20% on the appellant for not maintaining

a sufficient distance from the car. The Tribunal had exonerated the

car driver and determined the negligence of the appellant and the bus

driver in the ratio of 20:80. In appeal, the High Court has rightly held

that since the genesis of the accident was the sudden braking of the

car, the car driver should also be made liable. The High Court held

the car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of 40%

and 30% respectively; while the appellant was made liable for 30%

contributory negligence.

1 Distance from vehicles in front: The Driver of a Motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient

distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop. 3

6. The car insurer has taken the stand that the appellant had hit the

moving car from behind and thus, car driver is not liable. On the

other hand, the car driver has admitted in his evidence that he had

suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had a

vomiting sensation. In our view, the concurrent finding that the

appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient

distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle

without a valid license is correct. But at the same time, it cannot be

ignored that the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes

applied by the car driver. The explanation given by the car driver for

suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway is not a

reasonable explanation from any angle. On a highway, high speed of

vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has

a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving

behind on the road. In the present case, there is nothing on record

to suggest that the car driver had taken any such precaution. Both

Tribunal as well as the High Court have noted that the bus driver

was also negligent. After considering all these aspects, we are of the

view that the appellant is liable for contributory negligence but only

to the extent of 20% whereas the car driver and bus driver are liable

for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30% respectively.

4

7. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the age of

the appellant at the time of the accident was 20 years, and he was

studying in the 3rd year of Engineering College, Coimbatore. It is also

not disputed that the appellant had lost his left leg due to the

accident and thus, suffers from a 100% functional disability. While

determining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had taken

Rs. 15,000/- as the appellant’s monthly notional income and the

same was affirmed by the High Court. However, the learned counsel

of the appellant would contend that the appellant’s notional income

ought to have been taken as Rs.25,000/- per month.

8. In the present case, at the time of the accident, the appellant was a

3rd year engineering student who could have had a bright future.

While dealing with a case of an accident in which an engineering

student had lost one leg, this Court in Navjot Singh v. Harpreet

Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1562 had noted that:

“12. Admittedly, the appellant was 21 years of age at the time of the accident and he was pursuing a Degree course in Food Technology from Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology. Though the Tribunal did not believe the claim made by the appellant that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month even as a student by taking tuitions, and though the High Court also did not go by the said claim, the High Court arrived at the notional income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/- per month, on the ground that the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker was Rs. 5,000/- per month.

13. But we do not think that the notional income of a student undergoing a Degree course in Engineering from a premier institute should be taken to be equivalent to the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker. Students recruited through campus interviews are atleast offered a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month.

5 Even if we do not go on the said basis, the High Court could have fixed the notional income atleast at Rs. 10,000/- per month.

14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and by exercising our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we take the notional monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 10,000/- per month.”

9. In the above case, this Court was dealing with a case of an accident

that occurred in the year 2013. Although considering the facts of that

case, this Court had taken the income of the claimant therein as Rs.

10,000/- per month, it was noted that students, like the appellant in

the present case, would be at least earning the minimum of Rs.

20,000/- per month. Thus, in our opinion, it would be in the interest

of justice if the notional income of the appellant were taken as Rs.

20,000/-. According to the guidelines in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009)

6 SCC 121 as upheld in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier would be taken as 18, and

future prospects would be 40%. Therefore, the loss of income would

be as follows:

Monthly Notional Income Rs. 20,000/-

Monthly Notional Income along Rs.20,000 + 40% of Rs.20,000 = Rs.

with 40% future prospects 28,000/- Annual Income Rs. 28,000 x 12 = Rs. 3,36,000/- Multiplier 18 Total Loss of Income Rs. 3,36,000 x 18 = Rs. 60, 48,000/-

10. The High Court has rightly granted Rs.5,00,000/- for the future

medical expenses but erred in reducing the attendant charges from 6 Rs. 18 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs. In the present case, by taking charges of an

attendant as Rs.6,000/- per month for 25 years, the Tribunal

calculated the attendant charges as Rs. 18 lacs. While reducing it to

Rs.5 lacs, the High Court has not given any cogent reasons and

merely noted that fixing Rs.18 lacs as attendant charges is exorbitant

and unreasonable. We are unable to understand how the attendant

charges of Rs.18 lacs fixed by the Tribunal are unreasonable. The

appellant has lost his entire left leg, which was amputated from waist

downwards, which means that he would require assistance

throughout his life to perform the basic daily routine. Thus, we hold

that the attendant charges as fixed by the Tribunal were justified.

11. There is one more aspect which has attracted our attention. Under

the head of loss of marital prospects, Tribunal had granted Rs. 2.5

lacs to the appellant and the same has been affirmed by the High

Court. However, in our view, it is not sufficient, and in the interest of

justice, it shall be increased to Rs. 5 lacs. As far as the High Court’s

decision to grant Rs. 5 lacs for the future medical expenses is

concerned, we do not think it requires any interference. For all other

heads, we agree with the concurrent findings and thus, the

determination of the compensation would be as follows:

7

S.No. Heading Amount 1. Loss of Income Rs. 60,48,000/- 2. Attendant Charges Rs. 18,00,000/- 3. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/- 4. Loss of Marital Prospects Rs. 5,00,000/- 5. Discomfort Rs. 1,00,000/- 6. Extra Nourishment Rs.50,000/- 7. Medical Bills Rs. 22,03,066/- 8. Transportation Rs. 20,000/- 9. Damage to Clothing Rs. 3000/- 10. Future Medical Expenses Rs. 5,00,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 1,14,24,066/-

12. As stated above, the appellant is liable for the contributory negligence

to the extent of 20% and thus, compensation payable to the appellant

is Rs. 91,39,253/- (Rs.1,14,24,066 – 20% i.e. Rs.22,84,813) along

with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing

of the claim petition. Since both the offending vehicles (car as well as

the bus) were insured at the time of the accident, the liability for the

negligence of the car driver and bus driver shall be borne by them

i.e., respondent no.3 to the extent of 50% and respondent no.1 to the

extent of 30%, respectively. The amount of compensation shall be

paid to the appellant within four weeks from the date of this order.

8

13. We dispose of these appeals in the above terms.

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

………………….……………J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

1.

….....………………………….J. [ARAVIND KUMAR]

NEW DELHI;

JULY 29, 2025.

9