Date of the Judgment: February 11, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 191
Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
How should a court determine the income of a claimant in a motor accident case, especially when the claimant has suffered significant disability? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kana Vi vs. Abdul Munaf & Ors., where the claimant sustained severe injuries due to a motor accident. The court enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimant, emphasizing the importance of considering the claimant’s testimony and the extent of the disability suffered.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Case Background
On June 24, 2014, Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kana Vi (the Claimant-Appellant), aged 27, was riding his motorcycle when he was hit by a negligently driven goods vehicle. The accident occurred near Kashambi village. As a result of the collision, he sustained severe injuries and was admitted to SDM Hospital, Dharwad, where he remained bedridden for two months.
The Claimant-Appellant filed a claim under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking ₹30,00,000 in compensation, along with interest at 18% per annum. He stated that he worked as a “Goundy” (a construction worker) and earned over ₹10,000 per month. Due to his injuries, he was unable to work and was the sole breadwinner for his family.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 24, 2014 | Accident occurred; Claimant-Appellant injured by a negligently driven vehicle. |
| – | Claimant-Appellant admitted to SDM Hospital, Dharwad, and remained bedridden for two months. |
| – | Claimant-Appellant filed a claim seeking ₹30,00,000 in compensation. |
| December 4, 2020 | The Tribunal awarded ₹6,78,000 with interest at 6% per annum. |
| August 30, 2023 | The High Court enhanced the compensation by an additional ₹18,90,938. |
| February 11, 2025 | The Supreme Court further modified the compensation to ₹37,51,000. |
Course of Proceedings
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded the Claimant-Appellant ₹6,78,000 with interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal assessed the claimant’s monthly income at ₹7,500 and the permanent disability at 20%. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the Claimant-Appellant appealed to the High Court, arguing that the disability was incorrectly assessed and that his monthly income should have been considered as ₹10,000.
The High Court enhanced the compensation by an additional ₹18,90,938, increasing the disability percentage to 100%. Still dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that his salary should have been considered as ₹10,000 per month.
Legal Framework
This case primarily concerns the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides a framework for compensating victims of road accidents. The key aspects include:
✓ Determining the income of the claimant to assess the loss of earning capacity.
✓ Assessing the extent of the disability caused by the accident.
✓ Applying appropriate multipliers based on the claimant’s age to calculate future loss of income, as guided by precedents like National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.
Arguments
Claimant-Appellant’s Arguments:
- The Claimant-Appellant argued that his monthly income should have been taken as ₹10,000, as he had stated.
- He contended that the High Court, while enhancing the disability percentage to 100%, did not adequately consider his actual income.
Respondents’ Arguments:
The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of the respondents (Abdul Munaf & Ors.). However, it can be inferred that they likely contested the claimed income of ₹10,000 per month and possibly the extent of the disability.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- What should be the appropriate monthly income considered for the Claimant-Appellant in calculating compensation?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Appropriate Monthly Income | ₹10,000 | The Court relied on the oral evidence of PW1 (Wife of the deceased) and found no reason to discard it, aligning with the principle established in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav (2022) 1 SCC 198. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
- Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav (2022) 1 SCC 198: To establish the income of the person based on the statement of the deceased’s wife.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680: For guidelines on determining future prospects.
- Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413: Regarding medical expenses.
- Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439: Regarding special diet and transportation.
- K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385: Regarding pain and suffering.
- Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343: Regarding loss of income during treatment.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal and modified the compensation awarded to the Claimant-Appellant. The court determined the monthly income to be ₹10,000 and recalculated the compensation based on this income and other relevant factors.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Claimant-Appellant’s submission that monthly income should be ₹10,000 | Accepted. The Court agreed with the Claimant-Appellant, relying on the oral evidence of PW1 (Wife of the deceased) and the principle established in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav (2022) 1 SCC 198. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav (2022) 1 SCC 198: The Court placed reliance on this case to establish the income of the person based on the statement of the deceased’s wife.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680: This case was used for guidelines on determining future prospects.
- Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413: This case was used regarding medical expenses.
- Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439: This case was used regarding special diet and transportation.
- K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385: This case was used regarding pain and suffering.
- Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343: This case was used regarding loss of income during treatment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to provide just compensation to the Claimant-Appellant, who had suffered 100% permanent disability due to the accident. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the claimant’s testimony regarding their income and the need to ensure that the compensation adequately covers medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet, transportation, pain and suffering, loss of income during treatment, and loss of amenities.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Claimant’s Testimony on Income | 30% |
| Extent of Permanent Disability | 25% |
| Medical Expenses | 15% |
| Pain and Suffering | 15% |
| Loss of Amenities | 10% |
| Loss of Income during Treatment | 5% |
Fact:Law
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 60% |
| Law (Legal Considerations) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Appropriate Monthly Income
Claimant states income is ₹10,000
↓
Court considers oral evidence of PW1 (Wife)
↓
No material to discard oral evidence
↓
Relies on Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav
↓
Monthly income fixed at ₹10,000
Key Takeaways
- In motor accident cases, the claimant’s testimony regarding their income holds significant weight, especially when supported by other evidence.
- Courts should consider the extent of the disability suffered by the claimant and ensure that the compensation adequately covers all related expenses and losses.
- The principles established in precedents like National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi should be applied to determine future prospects and calculate compensation accordingly.
Directions
The Supreme Court modified the award and directed that interest be paid as awarded by the Tribunal.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the claimant’s testimony regarding their income should be given due consideration, and the compensation should be calculated to adequately cover all losses and expenses resulting from the accident. This case reinforces the importance of ensuring just and fair compensation for victims of motor accidents, especially those with significant disabilities.
Conclusion
In Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kana Vi vs. Abdul Munaf & Ors., the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the Claimant-Appellant, emphasizing the importance of considering the claimant’s testimony regarding their income and the extent of the disability suffered. The court’s decision ensures that the claimant receives just compensation for the losses and expenses incurred due to the motor accident.