Holding

The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹52.31 lakh, calculated on an annual income of ₹2 lakh, 100% functional disability, 40% future prospects, and additional heads such as attendant, loss of marriage prospects, and pain and suffering, and the claimed amount does not limit the award.

Summary

The appellant, Chandramani Nanda, suffered severe head injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 16 January 2014, resulting in 100% functional disability and loss of earning capacity. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him ₹20,60,385, which the High Court enhanced to ₹30,99,873 by treating his disability as 100% but still used an outdated annual income of ₹1,62,420. The appellant contended that his actual pre‑accident income was ₹2,64,000 per year and that he was entitled to additional compensation for future prospects, attendant care, loss of marriage prospects, and pain and suffering. The Supreme Court held that the courts below erred in using the lower income figure, failed to consider future prospects, and omitted several heads of compensation, and it rejected the argument that the claimed amount of ₹30,00,000 limits the award. Accordingly, the Court modified the award to ₹52,31,000, incorporating an annual income of ₹2,00,000, 40% future prospects, and additional compensation for attendant, marriage prospects, and pain and suffering, with interest at 6%.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation beyond the amount claimed.
How the appellant's annual income should be assessed for loss of future earnings.
Whether the functional disability should be treated as 100% rather than 60%.
Whether a factor for future prospects is applicable in calculating compensation.
Whether compensation for attendant charges, loss of marriage prospects, and pain and suffering should be awarded.
Whether the amount claimed by the appellant bars the court from awarding a higher sum.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Motor AccidentInsurance companyCompensationEnhancement of compensationCompensation enhancedBrain surgeryBrain injuryMentally unstable100% functional disabilityIncome Tax returnsFuture prospectsFuture attendant chargesLoss of marriage prospectsPain and sufferingRough calculationFair compensationAnnual incomeEnhanced income

Judgment

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 920 : 2024 INSC 777

Chandramani Nanda
v.
Sarat Chandra Swain and Another
(Civil Appeal No. 11100 of 2024)
15 October 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Appellant-claimant, if entitled to enhancement of compensation.

Headnotes†
Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Assessment –
Enhancement of compensation – Appellant-claimant having
suffered injuries in an accident became mentally unstable
with 100% functional disability – Compensation of ₹20,60,385/-
awarded by the Tribunal was modified and enhanced to
₹30,99,873/- by the High Court – Challenge to:
Held: An enhanced income should be considered for calculation
of compensation – However, the courts below assessed the
appellant’s annual income at ₹1,62,420/- by wrongly relying on
his Income Tax return from 02 years before the accident – Income
of the appellant based on the income tax returns produced on
record is progressive, annual income taken at ₹2,00,000/- –
Appellant also entitled for enhancement on account of future
prospects, given he was 32 years at the time of accident, he
is entitled to 40% future prospects – Further, ₹1,00,000/- also
awarded each on account of future attendant charges, loss of
marriage prospects and pain and suffering as the appellant
became mentally unstable having disability of 60% which resulted
in 100% functional disability – Order of the High Court modified,
appellant entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹52,31,000/- at
6% interest. [Paras 14, 14.1, 14.3, 18, 19, 22]
Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Awarding more
compensation than the amount claimed – Permissibility – Plea
of the insurance company that the appellant filed petition

* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 921

Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain and Another

claiming compensation of ₹30,00,000/- and since the same
was awarded by the High Court, no further enhancement is
possible:

Held: Rejected – Amount of compensation claimed is not a bar
to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be
just and reasonable – It is the duty of the Court to assess fair
compensation – Rough calculation made by the claimant is not
a bar or the upper limit. [Para 20]

Case Law Cited
Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 INSC 506;
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others
[2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 INSC 1068;
Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto [2022] 18 SCR 449 : (2023)
1 SCC 204 : 2022 INSC 1080 – referred to.

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Motor Accident; Insurance company; Compensation; Enhancement
of compensation; Compensation enhanced; Brain surgery; Brain
injury; Mentally unstable; 100% functional disability; Income Tax
returns; Future prospects; Future attendant charges; Loss of
marriage prospects; Pain and suffering; Rough calculation; Fair
compensation; Annual income; Enhanced income.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11100 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2022 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in MACA No. 256 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Chitta Ranjan Mishra, Avinash Kumar Jain, Shakti Kanta Pattanaik,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang,
Prang Newmai, Advs. for the Respondents.
922 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The claimant, in a motor vehicle accident having suffered injuries,
has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
He is aggrieved by the order1 passed by the High Court.2
3. The facts as available on record are that on 16.01.2014 four persons
occupying Verito Vibe Car bearing Registration No.OD-05-D-9596
were travelling from Sambalpur, Odisha to Cuttack. At about 01:30
pm, the offending Bus bearing Registration No.OD-14-A-1774 being
driven at high speed struck against the said car on NH-55 near CPP
Chawk, NALCO, Anugul, Odisha, as a result of which the occupants
of the car suffered serious injuries. One of the occupants, Ranjan
Rout, succumbed to the injuries on 31.05.2017. A police case
bearing P.S. Case No.7/2014 was registered against the driver of
the offending bus under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.3 Three
injured occupants of the car and the legal heirs of the deceased,
Ranjan Rout filed different claim petitions, which were assigned to
the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-3rd Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Cuttack. The present appellant had filed petition4
claiming compensation of ₹30,00,000/-. As all the claims had arisen
from the same accident the Tribunal clubbed all the claim petitions
and decided the same by a common Award.5
4. A perusal of the said Award passed by the Tribunal shows that
registered owner of the offending bus did not appear despite
service, hence, was proceeded against ex parte. The Insurance
Company6 contested the claim petitions. The Tribunal framed the
following issues:

1 Dated 24.08.2022 in MACA No.256 of 2019
2 High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
3 Indian Penal Code
4 MAC Case No.176 of 2014
5 Dated 15.01.2019
6 National Insurance Company Limited
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 923

Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain and Another

“(i) Whether the claim applications are maintainable?
(ii) Whether due to rash and/or negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration
No.OD-14-A-1774 the accident took place and in that
accident deceased namely Ranjan Rout succumbed
to injuries and other petitioners namely Dipti Ranjan
Pattanayak, Santosh Baral, and Chandramani Nanda
sustained injuries on their persons?
(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the
compensation and if so, what would be the extent?
(iv) Whether both the Opposite Parties or either of them
are/is liable to pay the compensation? and
(v) To what other relief/s, if any, the respective petitioners
are entitled?”
5. The Issue No.(ii) was decided in favour of the claimants. As far as
entitlement of compensation is concerned, the claim of the present
appellant was discussed under para ‘13’ of the Award of the Tribunal.
The evidence led to the effect that he sustained head injury, which
was grievous in nature. The claimant was initially admitted in Angul
Government Hospital and due to his serious condition, he was
shifted to Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack for better treatment and remained
admitted there from 16.01.2014 to 11.02.2014. During that period, he
had undergone a major brain surgery. The mother of the appellant
in her statement stated that due to the accident, her son (appellant)
had become mentally unsound. He is not able to understand anything
and is bedridden since then.
5.1 The appellant visited Ashwini Hospital for his follow up
after surgery on 17.06.2014, 15.09.2014 and 25.07.2015.
It was claimed that the mother of the appellant spent about
₹15,00,000/- on his treatment, which is still going on. However,
total bills produced towards medical expenses were to the
tune of ₹3,31,153/-. The aforesaid amount was awarded by
the Tribunal. The Record Keeper of the Ashwini Hospital was
also summoned in evidence who proved the medical record of
the appellant, which mentioned that he had sustained grievous
head injury fracture of C6 and T4 vertebra. He also produced
the medical bills.
924 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

6. As far as the employment of the appellant is concerned, it was claimed
that at the relevant point of time he was working as Branch Manager
in Padma Infrastructure Private Limited and was earning salary of
₹22,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal referring to Income Tax
return of the appellant (Ext.15)7 assessed the income at ₹1,62,420/-
per annum for the assessment year 2011-12 and that was made the
basis for awarding compensation. His disability was assessed by the
District Medical Board, Jagatsinghpur (Ext.13), according to which he
was declared to be disabled to the extent of 60%. It is pertinent to
note that the aforesaid assessment of disability of the appellant was
conducted 02 years after the accident, meaning thereby, the disability
was subsisting. It was claimed that on account of 60% disability suffered
by the appellant, he had suffered 100% functional disability because
of brain injury suffered by him. However, the Tribunal assessed the
disability and loss in earning capacity only to the extent of 60%.
7. The age of the appellant was about 32 years at the time of the
accident. Since the appellant fell in the age group between 31 to 35,
multiplier 16 was applied for assessment of compensation, referring
to the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another.8
8. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal, in addition to the loss
of future income calculated at 60% disability, awarded ₹50,000/- on
account of mental agony, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities,
and further awarded ₹1,00,000/- for future medical expenses. The
total compensation assessed was as under:

Head Amount (in ₹)
Loss of future income 15,59,232/-
(₹1,62,420 x 16 x 60/100)
Past medical expenditure including cost of medicine, 3,51,153/-
special diet & the attendant
Mental agony, pain, suffering and loss of amenities 50,000/-
Future medical expenses 1,00,000/-
Total 20,60,385/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum

7 Inadvertently, recorded as Ext. 16 in the High Court and Tribunal’s order.
8 [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 INSC 506
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 925

Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain and Another

9. Aggrieved against the said award of the Tribunal, the present appellant
as well as the Insurance Company preferred appeals9 before the
High Court. The High Court opined that the appellant had suffered
100% functional disability as against 60% assessed by the Tribunal
because even if the disability from persistent neurocognitive is 60%,
such disability entails 100% loss of earning capacity. The High Court
modified the Award of the Tribunal and enhanced the amount of
compensation from ₹20,60,385/- to ₹30,99,873/-.

Head Compensation
(in ₹)
Loss of future income 25,98,720/-
(₹1,62,420 x 16 x 100% disability)
Medical Expenditure 3,51,153/-
Mental agony and suffering 50,000/-
Future medical expenses 1,00,000/-
Total 30,99,873/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum
10. In the present SLP, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal as well as
the High Court have failed to appreciate that the income claimed
by appellant was ₹22,000/- per month i.e. ₹2,64,000/- per annum.
However, the assessment of compensation was made by taking the
income at ₹1,62,420/- per annum, which pertained to assessment
year 2011-12 i.e. financial year 2010-11. It is to be noted that the
accident had taken place on 16.01.2014, i.e. after 02 years from
the said financial year.
10.1 It was further submitted that the amount of compensation
should be enhanced by including factor of future prospect as
it has not been considered by the Tribunal and High Court.
Further, he should be awarded enhanced compensation under
the head of future medical expenses as he would be required
to incur medical expenses on a regular basis, and should also
be granted compensation for an attendant.

9 MACA No.256 of 2019 by the appellant and MACA No.350 of 2021 by the Insurance Company
926 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

10.2 Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that compensation
on account of mental agony, pain and suffering and loss of
amenities as assessed by the Tribunal is also on lower side
as the appellant will undergo pain and suffering due to injuries
and will go through mental agony throughout his life on account
of brain injury.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submitted that the assessment of compensation by the High Court
is on the higher side. There is no scope of further enhancement
specially keeping in view the fact that the appellant had claimed
a sum of ₹30,00,000/- as compensation, and the High Court has
already awarded more than that. However, still being reasonable,
the Insurance Company did not prefer any appeal.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
materials on record.
13. For the purpose of clarification, the High Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 30,99,873 from Rs. 20,60,385 as awarded by
Tribunal. This was done by considering the functional disability at
100% as opposed to 60%, as assessed by the Tribunal.
14. On the issue of assessment of income, we are of the view that
that an enhanced income should be considered for calculation of
compensation. In this regard, the appellant has produced on record
his income tax returns for the assessment years 2010-11 and
2011-12 as Exhibits 14 and 15, respectively. As per the records, for
the assessment year 2010-11 (the financial year will be 2009-10),
the income shown by the appellant was to the tune of ₹1,65,100/-.
For the assessment year 2011-12 (the financial year will be 2010-11),
the income was shown as ₹1,77,400/-. Further, as per the Salary
Certificate Exhibit-22 placed on record by the appellant, he was
working as Branch Manager for Padma Infrastructure and he was
getting a consolidated salary of ₹22,000 one year prior to the date
of accident. Now, it is to be noted that the accident took place on
16.01.2014, in the financial year 2013-14. If we calculate the annual
income considering ₹22,000, it would come out to ₹2,64,000/- per
annum. However, as per the High Court and the Tribunal, the annual
income is assessed at ₹1,62,420/-. However, both the courts below
failed to consider the fact that there is a gap of approximately 02 years
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 927

Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain and Another

and 09 months between the said income tax returns and the date of
accident. It can be seen that the income of the appellant, based on
the income tax returns so produced on record is progressive, there
is a possibility that he may have left his business and join service
to improve his income. Thus, in our view, it would be reasonable
to take the income of the appellant at ₹2,00,000/- per annum, i.e.,
₹16,666.67 per month.
14.1 With respect to the multiplier, we do not find any error in the
order passed by the High Court applying the multiplier of 16
considering the age of the appellant as 32 years on the date
of the accident.
14.2 On the point of assessment of functional disability as 100%
by the High Court as against 60% by the Tribunal, there is no
challenge by the insurance company.
14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed
to consider the fact that the appellant is also entitled for
enhancement on account of future prospects. Hence, in line with
the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited
v. Pranay Sethi and Others,10 given the age of appellant was
32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future
prospects.
15. As far as award of amount on account of medical expenditure is
concerned, we do not find any case to be made out for further
enhancement, as the amount awarded is in tune with the bills placed
by the appellant on record.
16. Coming to the compensation under the head of attendant, Tribunal
awarded a meagre sum of ₹10,000/-. While this amount may have
been awarded considering the cost of attendant charges incurred
during the period of appellant’s treatment, as he remained admitted in
hospital for 25 days and had to undergo surgery post initial operation
as well. However, now, considering the fact of mental disability to
be suffered by appellant, who is now around 40 years old and the
age of the mother who is above 60 years old, and will be appellant’s
primary caretaker, we are of the opinion that a reasonable amount
for future attendant charges should also be awarded to the appellant.

10 [2017] SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 INSC 1068
928 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

17. In this regard, we have perused the statement of the appellant’s
mother (PW-3). As per her statement, initially they had engaged an
attendant at ₹6,000 per month. However, he had left his services about
a month before the mother was cross-examined on 23rd September,
2016. Further, the appellant’s father works as a priest and have
a meagre monthly income. Thus, it is the appellant’s mother and
other family members who are taking care of him. Considering the
aforesaid facts, in our opinion, a lump sum amount of ₹1,00,000/- is
reasonable and deserves to be awarded to the appellant on account
of future attendant charges.
18. In addition to the above, appellant is also entitled to compensation
on account of loss of marriage prospects. A perusal of the impugned
award of the Tribunal and the High Court shows that nothing has been
awarded to the appellant under this head. In our opinion, considering
the law laid down by this Court on this issue, the appellant deserves
to be awarded a sum of ₹1,00,000/- on this account.
19. Further, in our view, a compensation of ₹50,000/- on account of pain
and suffering is also on lower side and the same deserves to be
enhanced to ₹1,00,000/-. It is for the reason that on account of the
injury suffered, the appellant has become mentally unstable, having
disability of 60%, which indeed has resulted in 100% functional
disability.
20. An argument is raised by learned counsel for the insurance company
that the appellant has initially claimed a sum of ₹30,00,000/- and
since the same having been awarded to him by the High Court, no
further enhancement is possible. We cannot accept this argument
and it is duly rejected. It is a settled proportion of law, that the
amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and
the High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is
found to be just and reasonable. It is the duty of the Court to assess
fair compensation. Rough calculation made by the claimant is not
a bar or the upper limit. Reference in this regard can be made to
the judgment of this Court in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu
Chand Mahto.11

11 [2022] 18 SCR 449 : (2023) 1 SCC 204 : 2022 INSC 1080
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 929

Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain and Another

21. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is allowed and the
compensation awarded to the appellant is assessed in the following
terms:

Head Compensation
(in ₹)
Annual Income 2,00,000
Annual Income after Future Prospects 2,80,000
@ 40%
Loss of future income 44,80,000
(₹2,80,000 x 16 x 100% disability)
Medical Expenditure 3,51,153
Future Attendant Cost 1,00,000
Loss of marriage prospects 1,00,000
Pain and suffering 1,00,000
Future medical expenses 1,00,000
Total 52,31,153
22. The total amount of compensation is rounded off to ₹52,31,000/-. The
appellant will be entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation
at the rate of 6% as awarded by the High Court.
23. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms while
modifying the order of the High Court. Pending interlocutory
applications (if any) shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey