Holding

The appellant is liable for contributory negligence of 20% while the car driver and bus driver are liable for 50% and 30% respectively, and the appropriate compensation after deduction is Rs 91,39,253.

Summary

The appellant, a 20‑year‑old engineering student, was riding a motorcycle when the car ahead suddenly braked, causing him to collide with the car and subsequently be run over by a bus, resulting in amputation of his left leg and 100% functional disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs 91,62,066, reducing it by 20% for the appellant’s contributory negligence and directing the bus insurer to pay Rs 73,29,653, exonerating the car insurer. The Madras High Court further reduced the award to Rs 58,53,447, assigning liability of 40% to the car driver, 30% to the bus driver and 30% to the appellant. The Supreme Court examined the apportionment of negligence, held that the appellant’s contributory negligence was only 20% while the car driver and bus driver were liable for 50% and 30% respectively, and recalculated the quantum of compensation using a notional monthly income of Rs 20,000 and a multiplier of 18. It restored the attendant charges to Rs 18 lakh, increased loss of marital prospects to Rs 5 lakh, and fixed total compensation at Rs 1,14,24,066, from which 20% is deducted, resulting in a payable amount of Rs 91,39,253 with interest. The Court ordered the insurers to pay their respective shares within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is liable for contributory negligence and, if so, what percentage should be attributed to him.
How liability should be apportioned among the car driver, bus driver and the appellant.
What quantum of compensation is appropriate, including notional income, multiplier, attendant charges, loss of marital prospects and other heads.
Whether the High Court’s reduction of attendant charges from Rs 18 lakh to Rs 5 lakh was justified.
Whether the notional monthly income of the appellant should be fixed at Rs 20,000.

Legislation cited

Road Regulation Rules 1989s. Rule 231

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant- engineering student in a motor accident, resulting in amputation of his leg and 100% functional disability. Headnotes† Motor accident Reduction by High Court – Challenge to – Appellant-20 year old engineering student was riding a motorcycle, car ahead of him applied the brakes suddenly, the appellant’s motorcycle dashed into the car, the appellant fell down on the road and bus coming from behind ran over

Subjects

CompensationEngineering studentAmputation of leg in a motor accidentContributory negligenceFixing liability of car driver, bus driverDriving motorcycle without valid licenseSudden brakes applied by car driverHighwayHigh speed vehicleFunctional disabilityNotional incomeMultiplierFuture prospectsLoss of incomeAttendant chargesFuture medical expensesLoss of marital prospects

Judgment

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1736 : 2025 INSC 905

S. Mohammed Hakkim
v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9897-9898 of 2025)
29 July 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the
High Court reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant-
engineering student in a motor accident, resulting in amputation
of his leg and 100% functional disability.

Headnotes†
Motor accident – Compensation claim – Reduction by High
Court – Challenge to – Appellant-20 year old engineering
student was riding a motorcycle, car ahead of him applied
the brakes suddenly, the appellant’s motorcycle dashed into
the car, the appellant fell down on the road and bus coming
from behind ran over the appellant, resulting in amputation
of his leg and 100% functional disability – Tribunal calculated
compensation as Rs.91,62,066/-, however, reduced 20%
on account of contributory negligence on the part of the
appellant and awarded Rs.73,29,653/- – High Court reduced
the compensation awarded to Rs.58,53,447/-, fixing liability
of car driver, bus driver and the appellant as 40%, 30% and
30% respectively – Correctness:
Held: Concurrent finding that the appellant was definitely negligent
in not maintaining a sufficient distance from the vehicle moving
ahead and driving the motorcycle without a valid license is
correct – However, the root cause of the accident is the sudden
brakes applied by the car driver – Explanation given by the car
driver for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway not
a reasonable explanation – On a highway, high speed of vehicles
is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a
responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving
behind on the road – Nothing on record to suggest that the car

* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1737

S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

driver had taken any such precaution – Thus, the appellant liable
for contributory negligence but only to the extent of 20% whereas
the car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of
50% and 30% respectively – In the interest of justice, the notional
income of the appellant taken as Rs.20,000/-; multiplier as 18,
and future prospects at 40%, thus, the loss of income would be
Rs.60,48,000/- – Attendant charges of Rs 18 lacs as fixed by the
tribunal, and Rs. 5 lacs for the future medical expenses as granted
by the High Court justified – For loss of marital prospects, amount
increased to Rs.5 lacs – For all other heads, the concurrent findings
upheld – Since, the appellant liable for the contributory negligence
to the extent of 20%, compensation of Rs.91,39,253/- payable to
the appellant along with the interest @ 7.5% pa from the date of
filing of the claim petition. [Paras 6-12]

Case Law Cited
Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1562; Sarla
Verma v. DTC [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 6 SCC 121; National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017)
16 SCC 680 – referred to.

List of Acts
Road Regulation Rules 1989.

List of Keywords
Compensation; Engineering student; Amputation of leg in a motor
accident; Contributory negligence; Fixing liability of car driver, bus
driver; Driving motorcycle without valid license; Sudden brakes
applied by car driver; Highway; High speed vehicle; Functional
disability; Notional income; Multiplier; Future prospects; Loss of
income; Attendant charges; Future medical expenses; Loss of
marital prospects.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 9897-9898
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 2932 of 2021 in CROBJ No.
103 of 2021
1738 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Gokulakrisnan, Sr. Advs., Raghunatha
Sethupathy B, Manoj Kumar.a, Vishal Sinha.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang,
Prang Newmai, Mrs. Shantha Devi Raman, Garvesh Kabra,
Ms. Tanisha Gopal.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before this Court challenging the impugned order
dated 11.11.2022, whereby the Madras High Court reduced the
compensation awarded to the appellant in a motor accident case
from Rs. 73,29,653/-to Rs.58,53,447/-.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) On 07.01.2017, when the appellant was riding on a motorcycle
along with his friend on the pillion, respondent no.2 suddenly
applied the brakes of his car, which was ahead of the appellant’s
motorcycle, and the appellant dashed his motorcycle into the
rear side of the car and fell on the right side of the road. The
bus coming from behind drove over the appellant, which finally
led to the accident resulting in the amputation of appellant’s
left leg during treatment. The car and the bus were insured by
respondent no.3 and respondent no.1, respectively.
(b) The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) seeking
compensation of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- in which Tribunal calculated
a compensation of Rs.91,62,066/-. However, since it was held
that there was 20% contributory negligence on the part of the
appellant, Rs.73,29,653/- were made payable to the appellant
by respondent no.1 (insurer of bus). The car insurer was
exonerated from all liabilities.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1739

S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

(c) Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, both the respondent no.1
(insurer of bus) and the appellant approached the High Court.
Vide impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the appeal
filed by respondent no.1 by reducing the attendant’s charges
from Rs.18 lacs to Rs.5 lacs and by fixing liability of car driver,
bus driver and the appellant as 40%, 30% and 30% respectively.
The cross-objection filed by appellant was also partly allowed
by granting him Rs. 5 lacs under the head of future medical
expenses. Consequently, the High Court reduced the payable
compensation from Rs. 73,29,653/- to Rs. 58,53,447/- along
with interest. Now, the appellant is before us.
4. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record.
5. First on the question of contributory negligence of the appellant and
negligence on the part of the drivers of the other two vehicles involved
in the accident. The Tribunal, as well as the High Court, have affirmed
that the accident occurred due to the sudden stoppage of the car.
However, it was the view of the Tribunal that if the bus had not been
involved in the accident, the appellant would have suffered normal
injuries, and it was mainly the negligence of the bus driver that led
to the amputation of the appellant’s leg. The Tribunal also relied on
Rule 231 of the Road Regulation Rules 1989 and put contributory
negligence of 20% on the appellant for not maintaining a sufficient
distance from the car. The Tribunal had exonerated the car driver
and determined the negligence of the appellant and the bus driver
in the ratio of 20:80. In appeal, the High Court has rightly held that
since the genesis of the accident was the sudden braking of the car,
the car driver should also be made liable. The High Court held the
car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of 40%
and 30% respectively; while the appellant was made liable for 30%
contributory negligence.
6. The car insurer has taken the stand that the appellant had hit the
moving car from behind and thus, car driver is not liable. On the
other hand, the car driver has admitted in his evidence that he had
suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had

1 Distance from vehicles in front: The Driver of a Motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep
at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly
slow down or stop.
1740 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

a vomiting sensation. In our view, the concurrent finding that the
appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient
distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle
without a valid license is correct. But at the same time, it cannot
be ignored that the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes
applied by the car driver. The explanation given by the car driver
for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway is not a
reasonable explanation from any angle. On a highway, high speed
of vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle,
he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles
moving behind on the road. In the present case, there is nothing on
record to suggest that the car driver had taken any such precaution.
Both Tribunal as well as the High Court have noted that the bus
driver was also negligent. After considering all these aspects, we
are of the view that the appellant is liable for contributory negligence
but only to the extent of 20% whereas the car driver and bus driver
are liable for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30% respectively.
7. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the age of
the appellant at the time of the accident was 20 years, and he was
studying in the 3rd year of Engineering College, Coimbatore. It is
also not disputed that the appellant had lost his left leg due to the
accident and thus, suffers from a 100% functional disability. While
determining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had taken
Rs. 15,000/- as the appellant’s monthly notional income and the
same was affirmed by the High Court. However, the learned counsel
of the appellant would contend that the appellant’s notional income
ought to have been taken as Rs.25,000/- per month.
8. In the present case, at the time of the accident, the appellant was
a 3rd year engineering student who could have had a bright future.
While dealing with a case of an accident in which an engineering
student had lost one leg, this Court in Navjot Singh v. Harpreet
Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1562 had noted that:
“12. Admittedly, the appellant was 21 years of age at
the time of the accident and he was pursuing a Degree
course in Food Technology from Sant Longowal Institute
of Engineering and Technology. Though the Tribunal did
not believe the claim made by the appellant that he was
earning Rs. 10,000/- per month even as a student by taking
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1741

S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

tuitions, and though the High Court also did not go by the
said claim, the High Court arrived at the notional income
of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/- per month, on the ground
that the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker
was Rs. 5,000/- per month.
13. But we do not think that the notional income of a
student undergoing a Degree course in Engineering from
a premier institute should be taken to be equivalent to
the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker.
Students recruited through campus interviews are atleast
offered a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Even if we do
not go on the said basis, the High Court could have fixed
the notional income atleast at Rs. 10,000/- per month.
14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, and by exercising our power under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India, we take the notional monthly
income of the appellant as Rs. 10,000/- per month.”
9. In the above case, this Court was dealing with a case of an accident
that occurred in the year 2013. Although considering the facts of
that case, this Court had taken the income of the claimant therein
as Rs. 10,000/- per month, it was noted that students, like the
appellant in the present case, would be at least earning the minimum
of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thus, in our opinion, it would be in the
interest of justice if the notional income of the appellant were taken
as Rs. 20,000/-. According to the guidelines in Sarla Verma v. DTC,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 as upheld in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier would be taken
as 18, and future prospects would be 40%. Therefore, the loss of
income would be as follows:

Monthly Notional Income Rs. 20,000/-
Monthly Notional Income along Rs.20,000 + 40% of Rs.20,000 = Rs.
with 40% future prospects 28,000/-
Annual Income Rs. 28,000 x 12 = Rs. 3,36,000/-
Multiplier 18
Total Loss of Income Rs. 3,36,000 x 18 = Rs. 60, 48,000/-
1742 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

10. The High Court has rightly granted Rs.5,00,000/- for the future
medical expenses but erred in reducing the attendant charges from
Rs. 18 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs. In the present case, by taking charges
of an attendant as Rs.6,000/- per month for 25 years, the Tribunal
calculated the attendant charges as Rs. 18 lacs. While reducing it
to Rs.5 lacs, the High Court has not given any cogent reasons and
merely noted that fixing Rs.18 lacs as attendant charges is exorbitant
and unreasonable. We are unable to understand how the attendant
charges of Rs.18 lacs fixed by the Tribunal are unreasonable. The
appellant has lost his entire left leg, which was amputated from
waist downwards, which means that he would require assistance
throughout his life to perform the basic daily routine. Thus, we hold
that the attendant charges as fixed by the Tribunal were justified.
11. There is one more aspect which has attracted our attention. Under
the head of loss of marital prospects, Tribunal had granted Rs. 2.5
lacs to the appellant and the same has been affirmed by the High
Court. However, in our view, it is not sufficient, and in the interest
of justice, it shall be increased to Rs. 5 lacs. As far as the High
Court’s decision to grant Rs. 5 lacs for the future medical expenses
is concerned, we do not think it requires any interference. For all
other heads, we agree with the concurrent findings and thus, the
determination of the compensation would be as follows:

S.No. Heading Amount
1. Loss of Income Rs. 60,48,000/-
2. Attendant Charges Rs. 18,00,000/-
3. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/-
4. Loss of Marital Prospects Rs. 5,00,000/-
5. Discomfort Rs. 1,00,000/-
6. Extra Nourishment Rs.50,000/-
7. Medical Bills Rs. 22,03,066/-
8. Transportation Rs. 20,000/-
9. Damage to Clothing Rs. 3000/-
10. Future Medical Expenses Rs. 5,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 1,14,24,066/-
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1743

S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

12. As stated above, the appellant is liable for the contributory negligence
to the extent of 20% and thus, compensation payable to the appellant
is Rs. 91,39,253/- (Rs.1,14,24,066 – 20% i.e. Rs.22,84,813) along
with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition. Since both the offending vehicles (car as well as
the bus) were insured at the time of the accident, the liability for the
negligence of the car driver and bus driver shall be borne by them
i.e., respondent no.3 to the extent of 50% and respondent no.1 to
the extent of 30%, respectively. The amount of compensation shall
be paid to the appellant within four weeks from the date of this order.
13. We dispose of these appeals in the above terms.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain