Holding

The Supreme Court held that the permanent disability is 90% as certified by the doctor and that the lower courts erred in reducing it to 60%, thereby directing the enhanced compensation accordingly.

Summary

The appellant, a 29‑year‑old professional driver, lost his left leg in a bus accident and claimed compensation under s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal fixed his annual income at Rs 15,000 and a 60% loss of efficiency, awarding Rs 2,75,000. The High Court raised his income to Rs 24,000 and applied a 90% disability, increasing the award to Rs 3,57,800. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by reducing the permanent disability certified by the doctor from 90% to 60%, and affirmed the 90% figure. Using the correct income and multiplier of 17, it awarded Rs 3,67,200 for permanent disability plus Rs 1,00,000 for an artificial limb, totalling Rs 5,20,200 with 6% interest, and ordered the insurer to pay and recover from the driver and owner. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the permanent disability percentage should be fixed at 90% as per the medical certificate despite the appellant's remaining body being healthy.
How compensation under s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be calculated with respect to income, disability percentage and multiplier.
Whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and can recover from the driver and bus owner.
Whether interest is payable on the compensation from the date of filing the claim petition.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActCompensationPermanent disabilityAmputationMultiplierInsurance liabilityInterest

Judgment

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 759

LAL SINGH MARABI A
v.
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3764 of20 I 7)
FERUARY 15, 2017 B

[JAGDISII SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, N.V. RAMANA AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 - s.166 - Quantum of compensation
- Grievous injuries resulting in amputation of leg - Claim for
compensation - Plea of claimant that he was professional driver
c
earning monthly income of Rs.-1000 which he lost due to 90%
disabilily sustained in the accident - Tribunal held that claimant
could 1101 prove hfa· earning of Rs.-1000 p.111. by doing driving job -
Tribunal fixed annual income at Rs.15000 and 60% decrease in his
work efficiency and accordingly worked oul compensation- High D
Court enhanced compensation amount taking w111ual income as
Rs.24000 -Appeal for enhanceme111 of co111pensa1ion - Held: Courts
below erred in reducing !he per111anent disabiliry determined by the
Doctor at 90% to 60% on the ground that despile the amputalion of
his left leg, the remaining body of the appellant was heal1hy -
E
Considering the factual matrix of the case including the fact that
with the amputated leg the appeilant could not pursue his livelihood
as a driver or daily wage labourer and taking into account the
Doctors Certificate, permanent disability sustained due to the
accidenl is taken as 90% - Thus, considering appellan/ :, annual
income as Rs.24.000/- p.a.. 90% of it would be Rs.21,600/- and F
applying lhe multiplier 17, compensation awarded under the head
of 'permanent disability' at Rs. 3,67.200/- - Also Rs.1.00.0001-
awarded toward' lhe cost <if 1he artificial limb - 171e Iota/ quantum
of co111pensatio11 amoulll enhanced .fiwn Rs. 3,57,800/- as awarded
by the High Court. to Rs. 5.20,2001- and interest @ 6% p.a. from
G
!he date of filing r!f !he claim pelition !ill realization of the
a111ount.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: There is no denial of the fact that the appellant had
suffered a major injury in the accident and sustained a permanent H
759
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A disability by the amputation of his left leg. Consequently, the
appellant, who was only 29 years old at the time of accident, had
undergone agony, both physically and mentally besides spending
money on his treatment and for the artificial limb. It is clear from
the medical certificate issued by PW-2 that due to the amputation
of his leg, the appellant sustained a permanent disability of 90%.
B
The Courts below reduced the permanent disability factor from
90% to 60%. Upon appreciating the factual matrix of the case
including the fact that with the amputated leg the appellant cannot
pursue his livelihood as a driver or daily wage labourer and taking
into account the Doctor's Certificate, the appellant has sustained
c 90% permanent disability due to the accident. Thus, considering
the appellant's annual income as Rs.24,000/- p.a., 90% of it would
come to Rs.21,600/- and applying the multiplier 17, he would be
entitled nuder the bead of 'permanent disability' to compensation
computed at Rs. 3,67,200/- (i.e.Rs.21,600 multiplied by 17). The
appellant is also entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.60,000/
D
- as awarded by th~ High Court towards the cost of the artificial
limb. Taking into account these figures, the total quantum of
compensation amount would stand enhanced from Rs. 3,57 ,800/
- as awarded by the High Court, to Rs. 5,20,200/-. The appellant
is also entitled to receive interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
E filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount. [Paras
9, 10 and 11) [762-H; 763-A-F]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.
(2004) 3 SCC 297 : [2004] 1 SCR 180 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
F
J2004J 1 SCR 180 referred to Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3764
of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2013 of the High Court
G of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in M.A. No. 4056 of2006.
Chandra Mohan Anisctty (For Dr. Kai lash Chand), Adv. for the
Appellant.
Ravi Bakshi, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Ad vs. for the Respondent.

H
LAL SINGH MARABI v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 761
LTD. & ORS.

The Order of the Court was delivered by A
N.V:RAMANA, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, who was severely injured in a motor accident,
has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Principal Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Jabalpur by its judgment and order dated 4'h April, 2013. B
3. Briefly stated the undisputed facts are that on 13'h April, 2004
when the appellant was travelling in a mini bus from Mandia to Bamhni,
being driven by Respondent No. 1, suddenly it turned turtle at a place
called Kishanpuri Ghat, resulting in grievous injuries to his left leg. He
was rushed to the Medical Hospital at Jabalpur where he underwent c
treatment till l 9'h April, 2004. As his condition was deteriorating, he was
referred to Victoria Hospital at Jabalpur where in order to save his life
his left leg had to be amputated from the thigh portion and he remained
there as an indoor patient till 5'h June, 2004.
4. Owing to the permanent disability caused on account of the
D
amputation of his leg, the appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor
Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation ofRs.10, I 0,000/-.
The driver and owner of the bus were made parties along with the
insurance company. For claiming the said amount, the appellant took a "--.·

plea that he was a professional driver with a monthly earning ofRs.4,000/-
which he lost due to the 90% disability sustained over the accident. E
5. The Tribunal decided the claim petition observing that (i) the
driver (Respondent No. 2 herein) drove the vehicle negligently which
caused the accident; (ii) the claimant (appellant) suffered serious injuries
due to the accident and consequently his left leg has been severed from
the upper portion of thigh, causing permanent disability; and (iii) that on F
the date and atthe time of the accident, the driver of the bus-Respondent
No. 2 herein, did not possess a valid license for driving the vehicle. The
Tribunal observed that the claimant-appel !ant could not prove the fact
of his earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. by doing the driving job as he did not
produce any driving license or authentic evidence to establish his monthly
earnings. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the annual income of G
the appellant would have been Rs.15,000/- and the accident caused a
60% decrease in his work efficiency. The Tribunal, therefore, fixed
Rs.1,62,000/- for physical and mental pain and compensation for the
future by applying a multiplier of '18' in view of the appellant's age
being 29 at the time oft°he accident, besides Rs.60,000/- for an artificial H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A limb, Rs.40,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.13,000/- towards expenses
incurred for food, (ravelling etc. The Tribunal thereby directed a total
compensation ofRs.2,75,000/- payable by the driver and owner of the
bus severally and jointly together with interest@ 6% p.a. and exempted
the insurance company from liability.
B 6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation ordered by the
Tribunal exempting the liability of the insurance company, the appellant
approached the High Court by way of a Miscellaneous Appeal. The
High Court, upon deeming the annual income of the appellant to be
Rs.24,000/.. enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.2,44,800/- under
the head 'permanent disability' and awarded the total amount of
c Rs.3,57,800/-, after applying a multiplier of' 17'. Though the High Court
agreed with the Tribunal that the insurance company is not liable to bear
the burden of the awarded sum, in view of decision of this Court in
National Inrnrance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swara11 Singh & Ors. (2004) 3
SCC 297, it directed National Insurance Company to pay the awarded
D sum to the appellant first and recover the same from the driver and
owner of the bus.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is the
contention oft11e appellant that the Courts below have committed a grave
error in not considering the monthly income of the appellant at par even
E with an unskilled worker whose minimum wage in the State of Madhya
Pradesh is about Rs.4,000/- p.m. The appellant was the only earni11g
member of the family, who lost his livelihood due to the accident that
resulted in amputation of his leg resulting in a 90% permanent disability
and requiring him to spend about Rs.2.5 lakhs for fixing an artificial limb.
Learned counsel further argued that while calculating the compensation
F amount the Courts below did not correctly appreciate the loss of
expectation ofl ife, loss ofimpairment of physiological functions, medical
expenses, pain and mental suffering of the appellant.
8. Learned counsel appearing forthe insurance company pleaded
that the present appeal is filed belatedly that at the instance of owner of
G the bus against whom Respondent No. I has got recovery rights. It was
urged that only with an ulterior motive to prevent the insurance company
from proceeding with recovery, the owner of the bus got this appeal
filed with the connivance of the appellant.
9. Having heard learned counsel on either side, this Court is ofthe
H opinion that there is no denial of the fact that the appellant had suffered
LAL SINGH MARABI v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 763
LTD. & ORS. [N. V. RAMANA, J.)

a major injury in the accident and sustained a pennanent disabiiity by the A
amputation of his left leg. Consequently, the appellant, who was only 29
years old at the time of accident, has undergone agony, both physically
· and mentally besides spending money on his treatment and for the artificial
limb. It is clear from the medical certificate issued by Dr. Naveen Kothari
(PW-2) that due to the amputation of his leg, the appellant sustained a
B
permanent disability of90%. We find from the impugnedjudgmentthat
the Courts below have reduced the permanent disability factor from
90% to 60%. We are not satisfied with the reasoning of the Courts
below for reducing the permanent disability determined by the Doctor to
60% on the ground that despite the amputation of his left leg, the
remaining body of the appellant is healthy. Upon appreciating the factual c
matrix of the case including the fact that with the amputated leg the
appellant cannot pursue his livelihood as a driver or daily wage labourer
and taking into account the Doctor's Certificate, we are of the considered
opinion that the appellant has sustained a 90% permanent disability due
to the accident.
D.
I 0. Thus, considering the appellant's annual income as Rs.24,000/-
p.a., 90% of it would come to Rs.21,600/- and applying the multiplier 17,
he would be enfifled under the head of 'permanent disability' to
compensation compµted at Rs. 3,67,200/- (i.e.Rs.21,600 multiplied by
17). In our view, the appellant is also entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- instead
of Rs.60,000/- as awarded by the High Court towards the cost of the E
artificial limb.
11. Taking into account the aforesaid figures, the total quantum
of compensation amount would stand enhanced from Rs. 3,57,800/- as
awarded by the High Court, to Rs. 5,20,200/- and we order accordingly.
Needless to say that the appellant is also entitled to receive interest F
atthe rate of6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till
realization of the amount. The insurer, Respondent No.I shall pay the
awarded amount of Rs.5,20,000/- plus interest accrued thereon to the
appellant within six weeks from today, and recover the same from
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 severally and jointly. G
12. The appeal stands allowed accordingly with no order as to
costs.

Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.