Tribunal’s income finding of Rs.11,000 per month is restored; attendant charges fixed at Rs.3 lakh, total compensation modified to Rs.24,86,500

A bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard an appeal by the claimant challenging the High Court’s reduction of compensation in a motor accident matter. The appeal arose only on the issue of computation of monthly income and attendant charges after the High Court had modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Court partly allowed the appeal, restoring the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at Rs.11,000 and recalculating attendant charges at Rs.3,00,000 while retaining several other heads as awarded by the High Court, resulting in a modified total compensation of Rs.24,86,500. The Court held that the claimant could not seek any further enhancement in respect of future prospects because no appeal was filed by the claimant against the Tribunal’s refusal of future prospects. The Court directed payment of the awarded amounts after deduction of amounts already paid, with interest at 7.5% from the date of application, within three weeks. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We notice that Syed Sadiq1 was a case in which there was no evidence led regarding the income, in which circumstance this Court had adopted an income of Rs.6,500/- for a vegetable vendor that too in the year 2008. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2014 and the claimants’ contention was that the deceased was a loading and unloading worker engaged by PW6, who testified that the petitioner would earn between Rs.600 to 1000/- per day. PW7 was a person working along with him as a loading unloading worker, who also spoke in tandem with PW6. Even if we accept the maximum of the daily wages as spoken of by PW6, it is evident that the total monthly wages claimed is only for 15 days work, i.e., Rs.15,000/-. Considering the overall circumstances, we are of the opinion that the income adopted at Rs.11,000/- by the Tribunal is perfectly in order. The compensation for loss of future income and that for income during treatment period has to be retained as awarded by the Tribunal."

Background The dispute arose from an accident on 05.01.2013 when a lorry allegedly driven rashly hit the claimant who was standing by the side of the road. The claimant suffered grievous injuries: the right leg was amputated from the thigh and the left leg was crushed, resulting in paralysis. Medical evidence, including oral testimony of treating doctors (PW4 and PW5) and hospital records, established a functional disability of 100%. The Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs.11,000, applied a multiplier of 13 and awarded compensation for loss of income of Rs.17,16,000, along with other heads. The High Court, however, reduced the assessed monthly income to Rs.6,500 (relying on this Court’s decision in Syed Sadiq) and, applying a 25% addition per Pranay Sethi, fixed compensation for loss of income at Rs.14,62,500, and modified the total award. The Bench distinguished Syed Sadiq on the ground that that decision involved absence of income evidence and an award relating to 2008 rates, whereas the present matter contained contemporaneous testimony from co-workers (PW6, PW7) that the claimant earned between Rs.600–1,000 per day. The Court noted that "The appellant hence cannot claim any further enhancement than that granted by the Tribunal, nor seek for addition of future prospects." It found that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court had appropriately determined attendant charges; the Tribunal had computed them on the basis of a regular attendant and the High Court did not furnish reasoning for its figure. The Court fixed attendant charges at Rs.3,00,000, partly restored the Tribunal’s order and otherwise retained the High Court’s figures to arrive at the final award. The appeal stood partly allowed with payment directions as above.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1218 (Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 7840 of 2020) Case Title: Ramar v. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated For the Respondent(s): Not indicated