Supreme Court of India
N. SURESHversusYUSUF SHARIFF & ANR.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 138
- Decided
- 19 March 2012
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s pre‑accident income was at least Rs.8,500 per month, his permanent disability was 90%, and a multiplier of 16 was appropriate, leading to a revised compensation of Rs.19,75,800 with interest.
Summary
The appellant, N. Suresh, was severely injured in a motor accident caused by the rash driving of a lorry, resulting in 90% permanent disability of his right leg and 50-60% facial disability. He claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, asserting a monthly income of over Rs.8,000 prior to the accident. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded Rs.4.17 lakh, which the Karnataka High Court modestly enhanced to Rs.7.26 lakh, but the Supreme Court found the income assessment and disability valuation were erroneous. Relying on evidence of the appellant's multiple sources of earnings totaling at least Rs.8,500 per month and a 90% disability, the Court applied the appropriate multiplier of 16 and recalculated loss of future earnings, loss of income during treatment, and medical expenses. Consequently, the Court modified the award to Rs.19,75,800 with 6% interest, directing the insurer to pay the amount. The appeal was allowed, overturning the lower courts' awards.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant proved that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver.
- Whether the appellant established the extent of his injuries and permanent disability.
- How to assess the appellant's pre-accident income for calculating loss of future earnings.
- What multiplier is appropriate for a 32‑year‑old victim under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- What quantum of compensation is due for loss of future earnings, loss of income during treatment, medical expenses, and other heads.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166
Subjects
Motor accidentCompensationLoss of future earningsMultiplierDisability assessmentSection 166Motor Vehicles ActPersonal injuryInsurance liability
Judgment
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 118
A N. SURESH
v.
YUSUF SHARIFF & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2942 of 2012)
MARCH 19, 2012
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUNDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 - Compensation - Motor
C accident of victim riding a moped due to rash and negligent
driving of lorry - Victim aged 32 years suffered 90%
permanent disability in his right leg which had to be amputated
and also 50% to 60% disability of mouth and other parts of
the body - Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 and awarded total
o compensation of Rs.4.17 lacs by taking his monthly income
as Rs.2000 - High Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 7.26
lacs by taking salary as Rs.3000 - On appeal, held: The
evidence on record showed that victim was earning Rs. 8500
per month prior to the accident - Victim was 32 years of age
E at the time of accident, therefore, tribunal rightly applied
multiplier of 16 to determine the compensation - Once income
is assessed at Rs.8500 p.m. annual income would by
Rs.1,02,000 p.a. - 90% of same would be Rs.91,800 and
same multiplied by 16 would come to Rs.1468800 towards
F loss of future earnings - The nature of injuries and treatment
taken by appellant showed that victim must not have been
able to work for minimum of 6 months - Rs.51,000 awarded
towards loss of income during treatment - The amount
towards medical bills was Rs.1,86,000 - Amount awarded by
High Court is modified and respondent-insurance company
G is directed to pay Rs. 19, 75, 800 with 6% interest to the victim.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2942 of 2012.
H 118
N. SURESH v. YUSUF SHARIFF & ANR. 119
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.09.2010 of the High A
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 11865 of 2010.
Sharana Gouda N. Patil, Ashok Kumar Gupta II for the
Appellant.
The order of the Court was delivered B
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted. c
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the nominal enhancement
granted by the High Court in the amount of compensation
awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Maddur
(Karnataka) in M.V.C.No.106/2003, the appellant has filed this D
appeal.
4. The appellant, who has suffered 90% permanent
disability in his right leg which is paralysed and 50% to 60%
disability of mouth and other parts of the body due to an
E
accident which occurred on 28th February, 2003, filed a petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') for award of compensation of
Rs.21,50,000/- with interest.
5. The case of the appellant is that on 28th February, 2003 F
at about 11.30 a.m., he along with his wife-Savitha was
travelling on a TVS Moped bearing Registration No.KA-01/
H4236 on the left side of the road. He was waiting near T.
Ballekere cross to take turn to go to Koppa. At that time, a lorry
bearing Registration No.CNT/7206 driven by its driver in a rash G
and negligent manner with high speed came to the extreme left
side of the road and dashed into the vehicle of the appellant
and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the appellant fell
down and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to the
hospital and in course was given treatment at different H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A hospitals. The appellant contended that he was aged about 32
years on the date of accident and was earning more than
Rs.8,000/- per month. After the accident, he has suffered
permanent disability and, therefore, he is not in a position to
work as before. During the course of treatment in different
B hospitals, he had incurred medical expenses to the tune of
Rs.4,50,000/- so far. After the accident, he was immediately
taken to the Government Hospital, Koppa. Thereafter he was
shifted to Mandya General Hospital and then he was taken to
J.S.S. Hospital, Mysore and from there he was further shifted
c to Mallige Hospital, Bangalore. Lastly, he was taken to St. John
Medical College Hospital, Bangalore where he was treated as
indoor patient and underwent an operation of the right leg
mandible, right hip, left leg, stomach and jaw(face). In the said
accident, the appellant lost all his teeth except 7 teeth in the
D upper jaw and 5 teeth in the lower jaw. After the operation he
has become permanently disabled and will have to spend a
huge amount towards medical expenses. The Doctor has
assessed the disability at 90% in his right leg which has
permanently paralysed; 50% to 60% disability of his mouth and
E 20% to 25% disability of his whole body. There was amputation
below the knee of the right leg.
6. The owner of the lorry did not contest the case before
the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent, the New India Assurance
Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Assurance Company)
F disputed the claim and denied the allegations made by the
appellant. However, it is admitted that the lorry was insured with
the 2nd respondent, the Assurance Co. The Assurance Co.
took a plea that the accident occurred due to the negligent
driving of the TVS Moped by the appellant himself, who without
G . giving any signal and without noticing the vehicle coming from
the right side, dashed into the lorry and caused the accident.
The Assurance Co. also denied the quantum of amount spent
in the treatment of the appellant.
7. On hearing the parties the Tribunal framed the following
H issues:
N. SURESH v. YUSUF SHARIFF & ANR. 121
"1. Whether the petitioner proves accident was solely due A
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle as alleged ?
2. Whether petitioner proves that he sustained injuries due
to impact of the vehicle as alleged? 8
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom?
4. To what order or relief the petitioner is entitled?"
c
8. In order to prove his case, the appellant examined eight
witnesses including PW.2- N,K. Narayanashetty, Sales
Manager in Adiswara Marketing Company where the appellant
was working since two and a half years, PW.3- Dr. N. Sundar,
Parlour Surgeon of St. John Medical College and Hospital and D
PW. 7-Dr. Natashekara M., Assistant Professor of
Kempegowda Dental College and Hospital, PW.6- Y.M.
Thimmaiah, Postman in Haralekere Post Office and PW.8-N.V.
Santosh, Manager of Adiswara Marketing Company. He also
produced 27 exhibits including medical bills, discharge
summary of the hospital, salary certificate/ vouchers, vouchers E
of commission, etc.
9. The Tribunal on hearing both the parties and
appreciation of evidence on record answered the first issue in
affirmative in favour of the appellant and held that the appellant F
sustained injuries due to the impact of vehicle as alleged. The
second issue relating to the entitlement of compensation was
also decided in affirmative in favour of the appellant but while
deciding the issue Nos.3 and 4, the Tribunal awarded total
compensation of Rs.4, 17,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% G
per annum against the following heads:
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A 1. Towards pain and sufferings =Rs. 50,000/-
2. Towards loss of future earnings = Rs.1,55,000/-
3. Towards medical expenses and other
Incidental charges = Rs.2,00,000/-
B
4. Towards loss of income during treatment =Rs. 12,000/-
Total = Rs.4, 17,000/-
------------
c 10. The High Court by impugned order dated 28th September,
2010 nominally enhanced the amount against different
heads along with 6% interest as shown hereunder:
1. Towards pain and sufferings = Rs.1,00,000/-
D
2. Towards medical expenses = Rs.1,50,000/-
3. Towards conveyance, nourishing food = Rs. 40,000/-
and attendant charges
E 4. Towards loss of income during laid-up = Rs. 18,000/-
Period
5. Towards loss of amenities = Rs.1,00,000/-
6. Towards loss of future income = Rs.2,88,000/-
F
7. Towards future medical expenses = Rs. 30,000/-
-----------------------
Total = Rs.7,26,000/-
-------------
-------------
G
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate the
income of the appellant by calculating it to Rs.3,000/- though
there was evidence on record to show that the earning of the
H appellant was much more than Rs.8,000/- per month. The High
N. SURESH v. YUSUF SHARIFF & ANR. 123
Court has failed to consider the permanent disability and loss A
of future income of the appellant who was working hard to earn
the income of more than Rs.8,000/- per month.
12. It was further contended that taking into consideration
the permanent disability of more than 90% of the leg and 60% 8
disability of mouth, the High Court ought to have assessed
permanent disability accordingly. Apart from this, the Tribunal
and the High Court have also failed to grant appropriate amount
towards medical expenses and other incidental charges apart
from Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses as granted. C
13. lnspite of the service of notice, nobody has appeared
on behalf of the respondents to dispute the claim.
14. We have considered the arguments as advanced on
behalf of the appellant and perused the record. The questions o
which arise for consideration in this case are :
(i) What was the earning of the appellant prior to the
accident and the permanent disability incurred during
accident to decide the quantum of loss of future earning
and loss of income during the treatment/laid up period and E
(ii) What amount the appellant is entitled towards medical
expenses incurred, other incidental charges and future
medical expenses.
F
15. The Tribunal has noticed and appreciated different
evidence on record relating to earning and disability to decide
the loss of future earning, the relevant portion of which reads
as follows:
"(ii) Towards loss of future earning capacity: Petitioner G
contended that prior to accident he was hale and healthy
aged about 32 years on the date of accident. He was
working as mail courier in Kowd/e Post Office (DDSMC)
and getting Rs.2,4941- p.m. since 1994. Apart from that
work he was working in Adiswara Market Company as H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A Deputy Sales Officer and getting commission of Rs.1,500/
- to Rs.3,000/- p.m. along with salary of Rs.2,000/- p.m.
He got 4th medal in the State. Apart from that he is working
as agent in PGF Limited, Mandya getting Rs.2,000/- to
3,000/- p.m. From all he was earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. His
B wife, mother and children were depending upon his
income. So there is loss of future earning capacity. In this
connection he has been examined as P.W.1 and deposed
about the services given by him. P.W.2 one N.K.
Narayanashetty, who is Sales Manager in Adiswara
c Marketing Company deposed that Petitioner is working in
their Company since 2-1/2 years and getting Rs.2,000/-
p.m. apart from commission of Rs.1,500/- to 3,000/- p.m.
Now he is not working there. P. W.5 Chikkathimmaiah is
Inspector in PGF Limited, Mandya deposed that
Petitioner was working as Assistant Agent and getting
0
Rs.2,0001- p.m. He has produced identity card at Ex.P-
22. Commission vouchers were also produced at Ex.P-
14. P. W. 6 Thimmaiah, who is postman in Haralekere
Post Office deposed that the Petitioner was working as
Mail Courier since 10 years and getting income. P. W 8
E Manager of Adiswara Marketing deposed that Petitioner
was working in their company and getting Rs. 2, 0001- p. m.
and also getting commission of Rs.4,0001- to 5,0001- p.m.
He has issued certificates as per Ex.P-7. Now he is not
working in the company, Ex.P-15 his salary vouchers.
F Some commission vouchers of Adiswara Marketing
Limited were produced. Ex. P-13 is Postal Department
Certificate stating that he was working as mail courier,
Ex.P-11 is certificate of Post Department stated that from
March 2003 to August 2003 they have not paid the salary.
G Ex.P-12 is salary certificate of PGF Limited stated that
he was paid with Rs.2,0001- monthly income. Ex.P-13
shows that he was working as mail courier since 1994.
There is no specific details about his income. He was
getting average commission. Looking to the nature of the
H works stated by the Petitioner if is not possible to do all
N. SURESH v. YUSUF SHARIFF & ANR. 125
those works every day, he might have done work here and A
there. He has not stated from which time to which time he
was working his particular job and whether they are
continuous. Hence, considering all these aspects his
income is considered at Rs.2,000/- p.m. He is suffering
from permanent physical disability of 90% in his right leg B
and 50% to 60% in his mouth, his face become ugly and
he could not open his mouth, he is suffering from fracture
of mandible and maxilla. He inserted with plates and
screws, his right leg is fractured, he cannot chew and he
became weak. Doctor has stated he cannot work. P.W.3, c
Doctor deposed about the disability in right leg at 90%,
not deposed what will be the disability comparing to whole
body. P.W.7 dentist deposed that he was suffering from
permanent physical disability of 50% to 60% in his face
and comparing to whole body it come to 20% to 25%. D
Considering all these injuries his working capacity is
reduced. Hence, it is found just and proper to consider
disability remained with the Petitioner at 40%. He stated
that he is aged about 32 to 33 years at the time of
accident. He has not produced any age proof documents.
Medical certificate shows his age is 32 years. If there is E
so the proper multiplier would be 16. If income is
considered at Rs.2,000/- p.m. it comes to Rs.24,000/- p.a.
40% of the same comes to Rs.9,600/-. If same is multiplied
by 16 it comes to Rs.1,53,600/-. It is found proper to award
Rs.1,55,000/- under this head." F
16. From the evidence as recorded, it is evident that prior
to the accident the appellant used to earn the following amount:
1. Towards Salary from Adiswara
Marketing Company = Rs.2,000/- p.m. G
(As deposed by PW-8. Manager,
Adiswara Marketing Company,
at Ex.P-15)
2. Commission from Adiswara Marketing
H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A Company (Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/-) = Rs.4,500/-p.m
(as deposed by PW.8, Manager, (average)
Adiswara Marketing Ltd.)
3. Towads Salary as Assistant = Rs.2,000/-p.m.
B Agent from PGF Limited, Mandya
(as deposed by PW.5, Chikkathimmaiah;
Inspector, PGF Ltd. Mandya)
4. As mail courier of Kowdle Post = Rs.2,495/-p.m.
Office
c (as deposed by appellant and
corroborated by PW.6, Thimmaiah,
Postman)
Total = Rs.10, 995/-
D ===========
Therefore, it can safely be stated that the appellant was
earning minimum Rs.8,500/- per month prior to the accident.
17. The PW.3, Doctor deposed that the right leg is 90%
E disabled and is permanently paralysed. The leg is amputated.
Apart from this, his face has been deformed and is disabled
to the extent of 50% to 60%, due to which he is not in a position
to open his mouth fully. Therefore, it can safely be stated that
the appellant is 90% permanently disabled to earn any income.
The Tribunal and the High Court failed to appreciate the facts
F and fixed the disability at a lower level of 40% or 50%.
18. Admitted, the appellant was about 32 years of age at
the time of the accident, therefore, the Tribunal was right in
applying the multiplier of 16 to determine the compensation.
G Once the income is considered at Rs.8,500/- per month it
comes to Rs.1,02,000/- per annum, 90% of the same comes
to Rs.91,800/-. If the same is multiplied by 16 it comes to
Rs.91,800/- x 16 = Rs.14,68,800/-. Therefore, it is proper to
award Rs. 14,68,800/- towards "loss of future earning".
H
N. SURESH v. YUSUF SHARIFF & ANR. 127
19. So far as loss of income during the treatment is A
concerned, the Tribunal has noticed the nature of injuries and
treatment taken by the appellant to come to the conclusion that
the appellant might not have worked at least for six months. Even
if such minimum period for treatment is accepted as six
months, the appellant is entitled for a just and proper award of B
Rs.51,000/- under the head of "loss of income during the
treatment".
20. So far as medical expenses and other incidental
charges are concerned, the Tribunal appreciated the different C
evidence and observed as follows:
"iii)Towards medical expenses and other incidental
charges: Petitioner contended that he has taken treatment
in several hospitals. Initially he was taken to Mandya
General Hospital. Later in private car he was taken to JSS D
Hospital, Mysore. On the same day he was taken to
Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore. He was operated on
his right leg and discharged for higher treatment. He was
admitted in Boring Hospital, Bangalore wherein he was
paid Rs.5,000/-. From that hospital also he was E
discharged. Later he was admitted in St. John Hospital on
2.3.2003. He was operated on his hand, right leg, left leg,
stomach. He was indoor patient for 2 months. Later he took
treatment in Kempegowda Dental Hospital for mandible
and he was indoor patient for 1 week. All his teeth were F
removed. He lost all teeth and left leg. He has become
completely disabled. P.W.7 Doctor Natarajshekar of
Kempegowda Hospital deposed that he treated his dental
problems stated that on 9.7.2003 to 15.7.2003 he was
indoor patient. All teeth were removed, decided to insert G
entire set. On 10.7.2003 he was operated and again on
4.9.2003 he was operated for 2nd time. In this connection
he has produced Ex.P-5 wound certificate issued by
St.John Medical Hospital, Bangalore, Ex.P-6 and P-7 is
medical bills and Transporting charges. He has produced
H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A medical bills worth of Rs.1,85,628/- rounded off to
Rs.1,86,000/- and transportation charges worth of
Rs.27,230. Ex.P-9 to 16 case sheet, patient record,
discharge summary, Ex.P-17 is the case sheet of St.John
Medical College Hospital, Bangalore for having taken
B treatment from 2.3.2003 to 28.4.2003 and also taken
treatment from 2.3.2003 to 28.4.2003 and also taken
treatment from 29.3.2003 to 20.4.2003. Others are ex-rays
Ex.P-25 is KIMS Hospital records. He further produced
Ex.P-26 cash bills worth of Rs.2,590/-. On going through
c records Ex. P-6 the petitioner has taken into consideration
double of hospital bills, which ought to have been reduced,
which comes to Rs.1,85,000/- and not 4,83,000/- as
calculated. The bills are repeated as item
No.8, 18, 19,34,36,60. The only final bill worth of Rs.
73,0001- is shown but he has considered the interval bills
D
also including the final bills it comes to Rs.1,85,628/-. On
going through all the medical bills some of them are not
supported with prescriptions and not properly explained by
the petitioner. Having regard to all the circumstances and
treatment taken by him in different hospitals he might have
E spent for medical expenses. So it is better to consider
medical expenses at Rs.1,50,000/-. On perusal of Ex.P-7
transportation charges receipts have been produced, but
person who provide vehicle is not mentioned. However he
might have spent something for transportation. It is proper
F to consider Rs.10,000/- for transportation. He was in
hospital and taken treatment, he might have spent
attendant expenses and special diet, it is found just and
proper to award Rs.10,000/- for the same P.W.7 Doctor
stated that he has to undergo in future operation of
G mandible by spending Rs.1,50,000/- for insertion of implant
since all the sets removed. X-ray shows fracture of cants
of left side. There is permanent disability in the mouth.
Considering all these aspects it is found that he requires
future medical expenses of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, Petitioner
H
N. SURESH v. YUSUF SHARIFF & ANR. 129
is entitled for compensation under this head is A
Rs.2,00,000/-."
21. From the evidence on record the following amounts
towards different medical bills are undisputed:
(1) The amounts paid during the 8
treatment shows as interval bills
and final bills =Rs.1,86,000/-
(2) Cash Bill (Ex.P26) =Rs. 2,590/-
c
In this background, the High Court and the Tribunal ought
to have accepted the amount of Rs.1,86,000/- towards medical
bills, apart from transportation charges.
22. If the aforesaid amount is taken into consideration
towards the abovesaid heads, then as per High Court's D
calculation the break-up of amounts is as follows:
1. Towards pain and sufferings =
Rs.1,00,000/-
(as awarded by High Court)
E
2. Towards medical expenses =Rs.1,86,000/-
(as determined above)
3. Towards conveyance, nourishing
food and attendant charges =Rs. 40,000/-
(as awaJded F
by the High Court)
4. Towards loss of income during
laid-up period = Rs. 51,000/-
(as determined G
Above)
5. Towards loss of amenities = Rs.1,00,000/-
by the High Court)
6. Towards loss of future income = Rs.14,68,800/- H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2012] 5 S.C.R.
A (as determined
Above)
7. Towards future medical = Rs. 30,000/-
expenses (as awarded by the
High Court)
El ---~-~-~------------------
Total =Rs.19, 75,800/-
----------------
23. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.106/
C 2003 dated 9th September, 2005 and the High Court in MFA
No.11865/2005 dated 28th September, 201 O stands modified,
awarding compensation of Rs.19, 75,800/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till
realisation. The 2nd respondent-The New India Assurance
D Co.Ltd. is directed to pay immediately to the appellant total
amount of Rs.19, 75,800/- '-Vith 6% interest, after deducting the
amount already paid by them.
D.G. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor accident"Sign in to search