Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Increases Compensation to Rs.7.19 Lakh and Accepts 35% Disability for Injured Mason

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal against awards made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court in a claim arising from a 2002 motor accident, where the claimant sought compensation for sustained disabilities and losses. The appellant challenged the assessment of monthly income, percentage of disability and quantum of damages awarded for medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of income.

The Court allowed the appeal and substantially enhanced the compensation payable to the claimant. It accepted that the appellant, a skilled mason, could be assessed at the income claimed and restored the disability assessed by the treating doctor to 35% (whole-body equivalent), holding that reductions of an expert’s opinion required valid reasoning. The Court quantified the award, granting Rs.5,64,480 for permanent disability (calculated on Rs.6,000 per month), and increased heads for future treatment, medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendant charges, special diet and loss of income to arrive at a total award of Rs.7,19,480. The Court directed payment within two months after adjusting amounts already paid, with interest from the date of filing the claim petition, and required the appellant to provide bank account details for online deposit. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company, found that a Coolie would get an amount of Rs.4500/- as his monthly income in the year 2004. Definitely, an incremental increase of an unskilled worker’s income can be assessed at Rs.500/- per year in which context, even an unskilled worker would earn an income of Rs.10000/- in the year 2008. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the income as claimed by the appellant, a skilled mason can be accepted. As far as disability is concerned, the doctor has assessed it at 35% and the Tribunal reduced it to 25% on mere conjectures. There should be valid reasoning to go behind the opinion of an expert, especially in the matter of assessment of disability. In the present case, the doctor who was examined before the Tribunal had specifically deposed that the appellant was unable to sit down and walk and could not lift heavy weights. He was also said to be in constant pain."

Background

The dispute arose from a collision on 12.08.2002 when a bus, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, struck an auto rickshaw carrying the appellant. The appellant underwent hospitalization for about six days and required surgery with insertion to treat a compound fracture of the fibula of his right leg; he also suffered a fracture of the right ulna which required plastering and ongoing medical follow-up. The appellant claimed to be a skilled mason and produced a witness who stated the claimant earned Rs.200 per day (Rs.6,000 per month). Medical records and testimony of the treating doctor and hospital record clerk were placed before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted only Rs.3,000 as monthly income, assessed 25% whole-body disability (despite a medical certificate showing 35% relating to the right leg), and awarded Rs.1,62,000 in total after granting Rs.10,000 as medical expenses, Rs.3,000 for special diet and Rs.5,000 for pain and suffering. On appeal the High Court increased the monthly income to Rs.3,500 with 40% addition for future prospects, enhanced several heads including special diet and attendant charges, and awarded additional amounts for loss of income and transportation, raising the compensation but not to the extent claimed by the appellant.

The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, accepted the claimant’s status as a skilled mason and applied precedent on assessment of unskilled workers’ income to justify accepting the higher income. The Court emphasized that an expert’s assessment of disability could not be reduced on "mere conjectures" and required valid reasoning to depart from the treating doctor's finding. The Court therefore assessed whole-body disability at 35%, recalculated compensation on the higher income basis and increased awards for medical expenses (to Rs.20,000), pain and suffering (to Rs.50,000), loss of income for six months (Rs.36,000), attendant charges (Rs.12,000), special diet (Rs.12,000) and future treatment (Rs.25,000), resulting in a total award of Rs.7,19,480. The Court ordered the insurer to pay the net amount after deducting earlier payments with interest, within two months, and directed online deposit upon receipt of the appellant’s account details. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 821; Civil Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.20068 of 2022 Case Title: Suresh Jatav v. Sukhendra Singh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not available in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not available in the judgment