Supreme Court Increases Compensation to Rs.28.79 lakh, Assesses 80% Functional Disability and Orders 20:80 Apportionment Between Insurers

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard the civil appeal arising from a motor accident claim in which the appellant, who was travelling pillion on a motorcycle, suffered amputation of the right leg below the knee and deformity of the right hand after a collision with a bus that killed the bike rider. The appeal challenged the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and modified by the High Court.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and enhanced the total compensation to Rs.28,79,112.72, directing payment with interest at 9% per annum within two months and ordering apportionment between the insurers in the ratio of 20:80. The Court accepted that the disability to be assessed for compensation was the functional disability and relied on medical evidence to quantify impairment. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Raj Kumar found that the disability assessed for determining compensation should be the functional disability. In the present case the physical disability of the appellant was proved by the evidence of a doctor who examined him and assessed his physical disability. The certificate proved by the doctor clearly indicated 80% disability with respect to his amputated leg and 10% disability insofar as the deformed right hand. The doctor had clearly deposed that the stump of the right leg was also deformed and there was no possibility of using an artificial limb. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the disability of the appellant would be 80% only considering the fact that the appellant could still move on crutches." The Court also directed that "The above amount shall be apportioned in the ratio of 20:80 as against the insurer of the bike and the bus."

Background The accident occurred while the appellant was a pillion passenger; the bike rider died and the appellant sustained severe injuries necessitating amputation and causing permanent disability. The Tribunal had found contributory negligence on the bike driver and apportioned negligence at 20% to the bike and 80% to the bus. The Tribunal adopted an income of Rs.9,918 per month for the injured, assessed 55% functional disability (relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar), awarded Rs.50,000 for disability, Rs.20,000 for two months' loss of income, medical expenses of Rs.5,17,850 and special diet of Rs.10,000, leading to a total award of Rs.16,34,650 with interest at 9% per annum.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part and applied a 40% uplift in income as per Pranay Sethi for future prospects and computed actual loss for six months. The Supreme Court noted that the 40% enhancement applied to future prospects and that loss of income "as on the date of accident when the income is proved" should be based on the income proved before the Tribunal; however, observing the need for just compensation, the Court adjusted certain heads. The Supreme Court accepted the treating doctor's evidence that the stump was deformed and an artificial limb was not possible, and therefore assessed functional disability at 80%. The Court increased the award for pain and suffering to Rs.1,00,000, fixed attendant charges and special diet at Rs.15,000 per month for six months (Rs.90,000), allowed medical expenses of Rs.5,17,850, and assessed loss of income for bed rest at Rs.60,000 for six months. The Court computed loss of future income and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.28,79,112.72, to be paid within two months with interest at 9% per annum and subject to deduction of amounts already paid. The award was to be apportioned between the insurers in the ratio of 20:80 and the appellant was directed to furnish bank account details for online transfer.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 641 (Diary No. 20941 of 2023) Case Title: Kanubhai Gokalbhai Bariya v. Jaydipsinh Gopalsinh Parekhiya & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Advocate names not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Advocate names not indicated in judgment]