Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on February 11, 2025, said a statement of the wife of the injured man can be considered for the income in absence of any evidence to discard it.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra enhanced the compensation to the sum of Rs 37.51 lakh to appellant Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi by allowing his appeal.

He assailed the judgement of August 30, 2023, passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order of December 4, 2020 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hangal.

On June 24, 2014, the driver of the offending goods vehicle, while driving rashly and negligently, dashed into the claimant-appellant, aged 27 years, who was travelling on his motorcycle from Kashambi village. Upon collision, the claimant-appellant sustained injuries and, as such, was taken to SDM Hospital, Dharwad, where he was treated and remained admitted for two months completely bedridden.

The claimant-appellant filed an application under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 30,00,000 with cost and interest at the rate 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation, submitting therein that he was working as a Goundy and earning more than Rs 10,000 per month before the accident and was the sole breadwinner of his family. After the incident, due to mental and physical suffering, he is not in a position to do any work.

The Tribunal, by its judgment and order, directed the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs 6,78,000 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal considered the monthly income of the claimant-appellant to be Rs 7,500 per month and the permanent disability to be 20%.

Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant-appellant filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the disability has been incorrectly assessed at 20% by the Tribunal, while the appellant has actually suffered 100% functional disability. Furthermore, his monthly income should have been taken as Rs 10,000.

The High Court, by the impugned order, enhanced the amount awarded to the claimant-appellant with an additional sum of Rs 18,90,938. The High Court enhanced the percentage of disability suffered to 100%, and as such, the compensation awarded by the High Court was fixed as Rs 25,68,938.

Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant approached the apex court, starting that his salary ought to have been taken as Rs 10,000 per month.

Having heard the counsel for the parties, the bench said, "We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the appellant."

The bench pointed out, that the top court in Chandra Vs Mukesh Kumar Yadav (2022) had placed reliance on the statement of the deceased’s wife therein to establish the income of the person.

"Similarly, in the absence of any material to discard the oral evidence of PW1 Wife, we deem it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the claimant-appellant as Rs 10,000," the bench said, fixing the total compensation payable as Rs 37,51,000 by modifying the impugned judgment.

Case Title: Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi Vs Abdul Munaf & Ors