Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation to Rs.28.93 Lakh, Assesses 90% Disability

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal by a young claimant challenging the quantum and components of compensation awarded for amputation injuries sustained in a road accident; the appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi.

The Court allowed the civil appeal and substantially increased the compensation payable to the claimant-appellant, who had suffered amputation of his right leg above the knee. The judgment held that the functional disability was to be assessed at 90%, fixed the claimant’s age as 22 years at the time of the accident, applied a multiplier of 18 under Sarla Verma v. DTC, and awarded a total of Rs.28,93,494/-. The Court noted that the claimant was self-employed and that his ability to “move around” for running his business had been significantly hampered by the amputation, observing that “for the Appellant to be able to effectively run his business, he is definitely required to move around.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the functional disability suffered by him and also the determination of his age. The Claimant-Appellant is not salaried, but is self-employed running and managing his own business. For the Appellant to be able to effectively run his business, he is definitely required to move around. This has been hampered significantly by his amputation, which proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will severely impact his earning capacity. Therefore, the correct view would be to assess the disability of the Claimant-Appellant as 90%." Interest was directed to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal.

Background The claimant-appellant, then aged 23, was injured on 3 April 2018 when a bus allegedly driven from the wrong side struck his motorcycle near Gora Machhia; the father lodged FIR No.57/2018 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC. The claimant sought Rs.67 lakh in compensation, asserting monthly earnings of Rs.10,000 from running a coaching centre and Rs.15,000 as an accountant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) fixed notional income at Rs.6,000 per month, assessed 50% disability and awarded Rs.6,70,000 with 6% interest. The claimant challenged quantum, disability, age and income before the High Court, which enhanced compensation to Rs.10,10,004 by granting Rs.1,00,000 for pain and suffering and 40% for future prospects.

Before the Supreme Court the claimant argued that he should be assessed as equivalent to a skilled worker given his three‑year diploma in Mechanical Engineering, that his functional disability was 90% due to above‑knee amputation, and that documentary evidence (matriculation certificate, Aadhaar, PAN) showed his age as 22 at the time of the accident. The insurer did not appear at the hearing. The Court examined the documentary proof, fixed the claimant’s age at 22 years as of the accident, applied the multiplier of 18 in line with Sarla Verma (2009) and followed precedents including National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (for notional income principles), Mohd. Sabeer v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC (on percentage disability computation), Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (medical expenses), and other recent decisions on heads like attendant charges, pain and suffering and assistive devices.

The Court re‑computed compensation as follows: notional monthly income Rs.6,000 (yearly Rs.72,000), future prospects at 40% (Rs.1,00,800), multiplier 18, permanent disability 90% (producing Rs.16,32,960), medical expenses Rs.53,204, attendant charges Rs.1,08,000, loss of marriage prospect Rs.2,00,000, special diet and transportation Rs.1,00,000, pain and suffering Rs.3,00,000 and an assistant device Rs.5,00,000, totaling Rs.28,93,494. The Civil Appeal was allowed and the impugned awards were modified accordingly; interest remained as awarded by the Tribunal and pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2321 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16541/2024) Case Title: Sanjay Rajpoot v. Ram Singh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]