Suresh Jatav vs Sukhendra Singh

2025 INSC 821 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No…………..of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.20068 of 2022)

SURESH JATAV APPELLANT VERSUS

SUKHENDRA SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant was the claimant before the Tribunal

who claimed 100% functional disability on account of the

injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident.

3. On facts, suffice it to notice that the appellant was

travelling in an auto rickshaw on 12.08.2002 when a bus,

being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the auto

and the appellant had to be admitted in a hospital. The

Signature Not Verified appellant was hospitalized for about six days and a surgery Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH

had to be conducted on him. An insertion was made to treat Date: 2025.07.14 15:48:05 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022

the compound fracture suffered on the fibula of his right leg.

He also suffered a fracture to the ulna of the right hand

which required plastering. The appellant had been

regularly visiting the hospital due to his leg having not

healed. The appellant claimed that he was a skilled mason

and a person working with him was examined to prove that

he was earning an income of Rs.200 per day. The medical

treatment undergone by him and the disability was proved

by examination of the record clerk of the hospital who

produced the necessary records and the doctor who treated

the appellant.

4. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the income of

Rs.6,000/- per month and adopted only Rs.3,000/- as

monthly income. 25% disability was accepted, despite the

certificate having shown 35% disability, which the Tribunal

opined was only with respect to the right leg and hence, the

whole-body disability can only be 25%. Though, an amount

of Rs.25,000/- was claimed for medical expenses, the

Tribunal granted only in accordance with the bills produced

of Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of

Rs.3,000/- for special diet and Rs.5,000/- for pain and Page 2 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022 suffering. A total amount of Rs.1,62,000/- was awarded by

the Tribunal.

5. On appeal to the High Court, the income was

increased to Rs.3500/- and a 40% addition was made for

future prospects. The High Court also awarded an amount of

Rs.25,000/- for future treatment and increased the amounts

for special diet to Rs.12,000/- and retained the medical

expenses at Rs.10,000/- itself. As far as pain and suffering,

the High Court enhanced it to Rs.30,000/- and an amount of

Rs.12,000/- was granted as attendant charges for six months

at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. Since the appellant, as

per the medical records, would have been laid up for about

six months, the High Court also granted an additional

amount of Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges and

Rs.21,000/- for loss of income.

6. Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company1, found that a Coolie would

get an amount of Rs.4500/- as his monthly income in the year

2004. Definitely, an incremental increase of an unskilled

worker’s income can be assessed at Rs.500/- per year in

1 (2011) 13 SCC 236

Page 3 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022 which context, even an unskilled worker would earn an

income of Rs.10000/- in the year 2008. Hence, this Court is

of the opinion that the income as claimed by the appellant, a

skilled mason can be accepted. As far as disability is

concerned, the doctor has assessed it at 35% and the

Tribunal reduced it to 25% on mere conjectures. There

should be valid reasoning to go behind the opinion of an

expert, especially in the matter of assessment of disability.

In the present case, the doctor who was examined before

the Tribunal had specifically deposed that the appellant was

unable to sit down and walk and could not lift heavy

weights. He was also said to be in constant pain.

7. Considering the entire circumstances and also since

we have accepted that the claimant was a skilled mason, his

disability will have to be assessed at 35%. The evidence of

the doctor would indicate that he could not have continued

his chosen vocation.

8. On the other heads, we do not make any enhancement

with respect to the future treatment, special diet and the

attendant charges. However, for loss of income, since we

have adopted a higher income, necessarily it has to be Page 4 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022 Rs.36,000/- for six months. The appellant suffered two

fractures, one of which was a compound fracture, treatment

of which required surgical intervention. The medical

expenses can hence be increased to Rs.20,000/-. For pain

and suffering, considering the continued partial disability it

can be increased to Rs.50,000/-. On the above reasoning,

the following amounts are awarded: -

Sr. No. Heads of Claim Amount

1. Compensation for permanent Rs.5,64,480/-

disability.

Rs.6,000 x 12 x 140% x 16 x 35%

2. Future treatment. Rs.25,000/-

3. Special diet for six months. Rs.12,000/-

4. Loss of income for six months. Rs.36,000/-

Rs.6,000 x 6

5. Medical expenses Rs.20,000/-

6. Pain and suffering. Rs.50,000/-

7. Attendant expenses. Rs.12,000/-

Rs.2,000 x 6 Total amount Rs.7,19,480/-

9. The above-mentioned amounts shall be paid, after

deducting the amount which has already been paid with

interest as directed by the Tribunal, running from the date

of filing the claim petition, within a period of two months.

Page 5 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022

10. The appellant shall provide his account details to

which the money shall be deposited online by the insurance

company, within the above stipulated period.

11. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.

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

….……….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

….……….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

JULY 14, 2025.

Page 6 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022