S. Shakul Hameed vs T.N. STC Ltd.

2026 INSC 29 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No…………. of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.7347 of 2024)

S. Shakul Hameed …Appellant Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited …Respondent

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appeal is by the claimant who suffered a

disability in a motor accident, seeking enhancement of the

award amounts. The Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.2,12,800/- (Rupees two lakhs, twelve thousand and

eight hundred) which was enhanced by the High Court to

Rs.2,23,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty three

thousand) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per

Signature Not Verified annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2026.01.06 18:07:20 IST Reason: Page 1 of 5 CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024

3. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that

the appellant was employed as a salesman and was

earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand)

per month. However, the Tribunal only took an amount of

Rs.3,300/- (Rupees three thousand and three hundred) as

his monthly income, adopted from the Schedule applicable

to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 19881 and it was

left untouched by the High Court. It is argued that at least

the minimum wages applicable on the date of accident

ought to have been taken. It is also argued that the

reduction of the disability quotient to 40% as assessed by

the medical expert was without any valid cause.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation,

however, submits that the application itself was filed under

Section 163A of the MV Act. There was absolutely no

evidence to prove the employment or the income as

claimed by the appellant. The disability being functional

disability, the Tribunal and the High Court was perfectly

correct in having determined it at 40%.

1 for short, the MV Act Page 2 of 5 CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024

5. We have looked at the order of the Tribunal, and we

see that at the outset it has been mentioned that the

application is filed under Section 163A of the MV Act.

However, the compensation claimed was Rs.7,40,000/-

(Rupees seven lakhs and forty thousand) and the

averments itself indicates that the contention was that the

accident occurred because of the rash and negligent

manner in which the bus of the Corporation was being

driven. Hence, we are of the opinion that though Section

163A of the MV Act was mentioned in the application, the

claim is one under Section 166 of the MV Act.

6. As far as the income is concerned, it has to be noticed

that though the appellant had claimed that he was a vendor

of electronic equipment, there was nothing produced to

show the employment, nor the income claimed of

Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand). However, it has to be

noticed that in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.2, this Court computed the

income of a Coolie at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand and

five hundred) per month in the year 2004. Computing a

2 (2011) 13 SCC 236 Page 3 of 5 CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024 nominal increase, even a Coolie would be entitled to an

income of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month in

the year 2005 when the accident occurred. We are of the

opinion that the income of the appellant, hence can be

safely computed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per

month and the appellant being of the age of 27 years, the

multiplier applicable would be 17. There should be future

prospects of an addition of 40%, the claimant being self-

employed. The loss of compensation has to be reduced, in

accordance with the disability assessed.

7. The appellant had produced a certificate, Exhibit P-

14 wherein the disability was assessed at 60% by the

Doctor who was examined as PW-2. It is also stated in cross

examination that only skin grafting was done on the

appellant. It was hence, the disability was fixed at 50% by

the Tribunal. The High Court without any appeal by the

Insurance Company reduced the disability to 40%, which

was improper. Disability as assessed by the Tribunal

hence has to be maintained.

8. The total award amount, hence, would be modified as

follows: -

Page 4 of 5 CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024

Loss of income Rs.5000 x 12 x 17 x 140% x 50% = Rs.7,14,000/-

9. The compensation as above would be for the loss of

income. The amounts awarded under the conventional

heads by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court

would stand as it is. The respondent would pay the said

amounts within a period of three months from today with

interest at the rate of 7.5% as awarded by the High Court.

10. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.

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

of.

……..…….………….…………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

…………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI JANUARY 06, 2026.

Page 5 of 5 CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024