Supreme Court fixes insurers' share and enhances compensation in amputation case, apportions negligence 50:30:20

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar heard an appeal by S. Mohammed Hakkim challenging the Madras High Court's order that reduced compensation in a motor-accident claim; the appeal arose from a December 2017 collision in which the appellant lost his left leg and earlier awards by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court were under challenge.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and altered both the apportionment of negligence and the quantum of compensation. It held that the genesis of the accident was the sudden braking of the car and, while the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence for failing to keep adequate distance, liability should be apportioned as follows: car driver 50%, bus driver 30% and appellant 20%. The Court increased the notional monthly income to Rs.20,000, applied a multiplier of 18 and future prospects of 40%, accepted attendant charges as fixed by the Tribunal, and raised the award under loss of marital prospects. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The judgment further noted that “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.” The total compensation assessed by the Court amounted to Rs.1,14,24,066; after deducting 20% for contributory negligence, Rs.91,39,253 was made payable with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Liability for the award would be borne by the insurers—respondent no.3 (car) to the extent of 50% and respondent no.1 (bus) to the extent of 30%—and the amount was directed to be paid within four weeks.

Background: The dispute arose from an accident on 07.01.2017 when the appellant, riding a motorcycle with a pillion rider, collided with a car that had suddenly applied brakes; a bus from behind then ran over the appellant, resulting in amputation of his left leg. The appellant filed a claim petition seeking Rs.1.16 crore; the Tribunal awarded Rs.91,62,066 but, after attributing 20% contributory negligence to the appellant, fixed payable compensation at Rs.73,29,653 to be met by the bus insurer. Both the bus insurer and the appellant challenged the award in the Madras High Court. The High Court reduced attendant charges from Rs.18 lakh to Rs.5 lakh, apportioned negligence as car 40%, bus 30%, appellant 30%, and reduced payable compensation to Rs.58,53,447. The appellant approached this Court.

The Supreme Court reviewed concurrent findings on negligence, the car driver's admission of sudden braking, and Rule 231 of the Road Regulation Rules, observing duties of drivers to maintain sufficient distance. Applying precedents including Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh and the Sarla Verma/Pranay Sethi principles, the Court fixed the appellant’s notional monthly income at Rs.20,000, with 40% future prospects and multiplier 18 to compute loss of income at Rs.60,48,000. The Court restored the Tribunal’s attendant charges of Rs.18 lakh as reasonable given the appellant’s permanent disability, increased the loss of marital prospects award from Rs.2.5 lakh to Rs.5 lakh, and upheld Rs.5 lakh for future medical expenses. Interest at 7.5% per annum was directed from the date of the claim petition. The appeals were disposed of in these terms and the Court granted the appellant liberty to pursue recovery as per the order; payment was directed within four weeks.

Case Details: Case No.: REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 905; Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 28062-63 of 2023 Case Title: S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Counsel details not indicated in the judgment extract] For the Respondent(s): [Counsel details not indicated in the judgment extract]