Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on February 11, 2025, enhanced the sum of compensation to be awarded to a man by assessing his functional disability to the extent of 90% as his right leg was amputated after sustaining injuries in a road accident in 2018.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed an appeal filed by Sanjay Rajpoot and awarded him compensation to the sum of Rs 28,93,494 as against Rs 10,10,004 fixed by the high court.

On April 3, 2018, the claimant-appellant, aged 23 years, was going to his home on his motorcycle about 1.30 pm near the bus stand at village Gora Machhia, the offending vehicle coming from the wrong side of the road, being driven rashly and negligently, dashed into him from the front due to which he suffered serious injury, as the driver of the offending vehicle took out the wheel of the bus from the right leg and right hand of the claimant-appellant. He was taken to Medical College, Jhansi. During the treatment, due to the injury, his right leg above the knee was amputated.

With regard to the incident on April 6, 2018, an FIR under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle at Bandagon Police Station.

The claimant-appellant filed an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 67,00,000, plus cost and interest, stating that he earned Rs 10,000 per month by running a coaching centre for students of classes 9th and 10th and also worked as an accountant at Bablu Ghat of M/s Vikram Construction Company for Rs 15,000 per month, however, as a result of the injury suffered, it became difficult for him to perform his day-to-day activities.

The tribunal, by its order, held that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company was directed to pay an amount of Rs 6,70,000 at the rate of 6% interest, considering the notional income as Rs 6,000 per month and fixed the disability of the claimant-appellant to be at 50%.

Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant appellant approached the high court on the ground that the tribunal had not appropriately considered his monthly income to the tune of Rs 10,000 and also did not make an award on future prospects as per the settled principles of law.

The high court, by the impugned judgment, enhanced the award in favour of the claimant-appellant by granting Rs 1,00,000 under the head of pain and suffering alongwith granting 40% under the head of future prospects.

Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant filed an appeal before the apex court. He raised the grounds of challenge that the courts below had incorrectly assessed the monthly income. He submitted that he held a three three-year Diploma Course in Mechanical Engineering and should have been treated at par with a skilled labourer for the purposes of his notional income. Furthermore, both courts had failed to assess his functional disability as 90% since, due to his amputation, he was unable to perform daily tasks, he contended. Lastly, he argued that his age was also wrongly considered as 26, whereas it should have been 22 years as per evidence on record.

After hearing the counsel, the bench said, "We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the functional disability suffered by him and also the determination of his age. The claimant-appellant is not salaried, but is self-employed running and managing his own business. For the appellant to be able to effectively run his business, he is definitely required to move around. This has been hampered significantly by his amputation, which proves that the functional disability of the appellant will severely impact his earning capacity. Therefore, the correct view would be to assess the disability of the claimant-appellant as 90%."

Coming to the age of the claimant-appellant, the bench pointed out, on a perusal of the matriculation certificate, Aadhar card, and Pan card of the petitioner, his date of birth was November 13, 1995.

"Given this evidence on record, this court fixes his age at the time of the incident in 2018 as 22 years of age. Consequently, as per the exposition of this court in Sarla Verma Vs DTC, (2009), the multiplier to be applied is 18," the bench said.

The court thus modified the amount of the compensation payable to the claimant-appellant.

Case Title: Sanjay Rajpoot Vs Ram Singh & Ors