Santhosh vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd

2026 INSC 500 Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.22089/2023]

SANTHOSH …APPELLANT Versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The appellant was the rider of a motorcycle, who met

with an accident on 16.08.2019, when he collided with another

motorcycle. The Tribunal and the High Court found that the

negligence was on the part of the rider of the other

motorcycle, which was driven in a rash manner. The

offending vehicle was covered with a valid insurance policy,

Signature Not Verified and both the riders had valid driving licenses. The Tribunal Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2026.05.16 12:25:10 IST Reason: Page 1 of 6 CA @ SLP(C) No.22089 of 2026 awarded an amount of Rs.19,58,513/- on various heads. On

an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the loss of earning

capacity due to the disability was reduced from

Rs.17,66,520/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.80,000/-. The

Tribunal had found a disability of 20% and taken the income

of the appellant at Rs.30,000/-; deducted Income Tax to the

tune of Rs.13,300/- added future prospects of 40% and

applied multiplicand of 18 and on the 20% disability

assessed, the total loss of earning capacity was computed at

Rs.17,66,520/-. Under the conventional heads of attendant

charges, pain and suffering, extra nourishment and

transportation, a total amount Rs.82,000/- was granted along

with medical expenses of Rs.1,09,993/-.

3. The High Court enhanced the compensation under the

conventional heads to Rs.1,05,000/- and added an amount of

Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities, while retaining the medical

expenses granted by the Tribunal. However reduction was

made on the reasoning that the multiplier method adopted by

the Tribunal was erroneous. A sum of Rs.4,000/- was awarded

Page 2 of 6 CA @ SLP(C) No.22089 of 2026 per percentage and a total of Rs.80,000/- was computed as the

compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity due

to disability. We cannot but find that the loss of earning

capacity as assessed by the High Court is unheard of.

4. Even before the Tribunal the certificate of disablement

from the Regional Medical Board, Government Hospital,

Royapettah, Chennai assessed the appellant to have 20%

permanent disability. Before us, there was a challenge raised

to the disability, which we had referred again to the very

same Hospital. The newly constituted Regional Medial Board

also assessed the appellant as having 20% permanent

disability. The appellant was asserted to be a squash coach

and the disability would have considerably affected his

employment; though not found to be permanent by the

Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the appellant had produced an

appointment letter of the Indian Institute of Technology,

Madras produced as Ex.P13 which indicated him to have

been engaged as a coach in the said institute; though not as a

permanent employee. The bank statement of the appellant

Page 3 of 6 CA @ SLP(C) No.22089 of 2026 produced as Ex.P14 also indicated that a sum of Rs.27,000/-

was credited as his salary. It was on this basis that the

Tribunal arrived at a monthly income of Rs.30,000/- from

which the income tax of Rs.13,300/- was reduced on the

annual income computed.

5. As we found the measure adopted by the High Court is

totally erroneous and the Tribunal correctly assessed the loss

of earning capacity and granted compensation based on the

salary, the age and the future prospects applicable to a self-

employed person and granted 20% of the same as the loss of

earning capacity due to disability, which we uphold.

6. Insofar as the medical expenses and the other amounts

granted on conventional heads, we uphold the award of the

High Court but, however, delete Rs.50,000/- granted as

amenities. We hence restore the award of the Tribunal insofar

as the loss of earning capacity due to disability and uphold

the order of the High Court on all other heads, except loss of

amenities.

Page 4 of 6 CA @ SLP(C) No.22089 of 2026

7. We are conscious of the fact that there is no appeal filed

by the insurer from the order of the High Court before this

Court. However, since the principle is of awarding just

compensation, we are of the opinion that the loss of earning

capacity takes into account the loss of amenities and hence

we delete Rs.50,000/-.

8. The total amounts awarded hence would be as per the

following computation:

S. No. Particulars Amount

1. Loss of earning capacity due to Rs.17,66,520/-

disability of 20%

2. Medical expenses Rs.1,09,993/-

3. Attendant Charges Rs.20,000/-

4. Towards Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-

5. Towards Extra Nourishment Rs.20,000/-

6. Towards Transportation Rs.15,000/-

Total Rs.19,81,513/-

9. The compensation awarded as above shall be paid after

deducting what is already paid with interest @ 7.5% as

awarded by the Tribunal. The same shall be disbursed to the

Page 5 of 6 CA @ SLP(C) No.22089 of 2026 appellant within a period of three months from the receipt of

this order.

10. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.

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

……….…………………….….. J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

……….…………………….….. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 12, 2026.

Page 6 of 6 CA @ SLP(C) No.22089 of 2026