Sunil Kumar Khushwaha vs Katragadda Satyanarayana

2025 INSC 642 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.16748 of 2024)

SUNIL KUMAR KHUSHWAHA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

KATRAGADDA SATYANARAYANA & ANR.

RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Two pedestrians were struck by a truck which was

driven rashly and negligently, leading to one of them, the

appellant/claimant herein, suffering grievous injuries

leading to amputation of his right leg from knee. The injured

was first taken to the local hospital, then shifted to the

specialized hospital and later to Delhi from Ranchi for better

treatment where the amputation was carried out. The Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi injured was a fruit seller who had already been filing Date: 2025.05.07 19:32:05 IST Reason:

Income Tax Returns, Exhibit-5 which indicated his income to

Page 1 of 5 CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024 the tune of Rs.1,56,996/-. The same was adopted by the

Tribunal, however no amounts were granted for loss of

income due to the permanent disability suffered. The

Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.7,09,273/-, the major

portion of which was towards medical bills coming to

Rs.5,00,949/-. The aggregate was with respect to income

during treatment for one and half months, towards

conveyance (air and rail) and the pain and suffering which

were respectively at Rs.19,624/-, Rs.13,700/- and

Rs.1,75,000/-.

3. The High Court relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar

and Anr.1 which emphasized the need to assess the

functional disability in granting compensation based on the

physical disability certificate. In the present case, a doctor

was examined who produced Exhibit4/1, a disability

certificate issued on the examination of the injured by a

Medical Board. The certificate assessed the injured to have

50% permanent disability due to amputation of his right leg.

4. Mr.Karan Deep Singh, learned counsel for the

appellant/injured submitted that since the appellant was a

1 (2011) 1 SCC 343

Page 2 of 5 CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024 fruit seller, he could no longer carry out such sales and

hence there is a 100% functional disability in so far as the

chosen vocation. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel

for the respondent-Insurance Company sought to uphold the

order of the High Court.

5. We are not satisfied that a functional disability of 100%

can be assessed only because he cannot carry on the

vocation which he was carrying on earlier. It is not as if the

appellant was vending fruit on his foot, especially when it is

seen that he was filing an Income Tax Return. It is also

evident from the deposition of CW-2 that the injured was

having a shop in Bazar Samiti. Definitely, the disability

would affect his income, and he would probably have to

engage an employee in his shop. In Raj Kumar (supra), a

self-employed person engaged in a business, who had to

amputate his left leg, pursuant to a motor vehicle accident,

was assessed with a functional disability of 60% by the

Tribunal, which was found to be proper. Hence, in the

present case, functional disability can be assessed at 60%.

6. In addition, because the injured had to move from the

local hospital to the specialized hospital and then to the Page 3 of 5 CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024 higher medical center at Delhi, the conveyance charges can

be fixed at Rs.50,000/-. For pain and suffering, considering

amputation of his left leg, Rs.2 lakhs can be awarded. The

High Court has found a reasonable period of bed rest at 6

months and for special diet and attendant charges there

shall be an amount awarded of Rs. 15,000/- per month. So

far as the income during treatment it must be preserved as

awarded by the Tribunal. The total compensation would

stand modified as herein: -

Sr. No. Heads of Claim Amount 1. Loss of income. Rs.23,73,780/- Rs.1,56,996 x 140% x 18 x 60% 2. Medical expenses. Rs.5,00,949/- 3. Conveyance charges. Rs.50,000/- 4. Pain and suffering. Rs.2,00,000/- 5. Income loss for 1& ½ months Rs. 19,624/-

6. Special diet and attendant Rs.90,000/-

charges for six months.

Rs.15,000 x 6 Total amount Rs.32,34,353/-

7. The said amount shall be paid, deducting whatever

amount has been paid as of now, with interest as directed by

Page 4 of 5 CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024 the Tribunal, running from the date of filing of the claim

petition, within a period of two months.

8. The appellant shall provide the account details to

which account the money shall be deposited online by the

insurance company, within the above stipulated period.

9. The Appeal stands allowed with the above

modification.

10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

….……….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 07, 2025.

Page 5 of 5 CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024