(N. Kotiswar Singh and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)
Jagdish Narayan __________________________________ Appellant;
v.
Karan Singh and Others _______________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. ………. of 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18945 of 2024], decided on July 7, 2026
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Leave granted.
2. The appellant suffered grievous injuries and sustained 78% disability, when a car collided with the bike where he was riding as a pillion rider. Negligence was proved on the driver of the car, which vehicle was insured. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, computing the notional income at Rs. 3,000/- as would be applicable to a labourer as against the claim of Rs. 10,000/- as raised by the appellant in his asserted vocation of farmer. However, the Tribunal reduced the compensation finding contributory negligence @ 50%. The High Court reversed the finding regarding contributory negligence and enhanced the monthly income and made additions under various heads as is seen from the impugned judgment, awarding a total amount of Rs. 8,90,683/-.
3. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that he had produced a document to show his ownership of 7.8200 hectares, evidencing his occupation. The Tribunal found that there was no proof of the appellant having carried out agricultural operations. The claimant who was examined before the Tribunal in cross-examination also admitted that he has given the land for farming to another. It is also pertinent that the documents produced by the claimant only showed 1/16th interest in the total extent of property. We cannot hence accept the plea of the appellant having earned Rs. 10,000/- as a farmer.
4. However, it is to be noticed that in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.1, this Court found that a coolie would be entitled to a monthly income of Rs. 4,500/- in the year 2004. Applying a nominal increase of Rs. 500/- per year, in the year 2011, a labourer would be entitled to an income of Rs. 8,000/-. The multiplier of 9 adopted by both the Tribunal and the High Court is correct since the age of the appellant was 57 and so is the future prospects taken @ 10%. Hence, the total compensation for loss of income due to disability caused would be 8,000 × 12 × 9 × 110% × 78% — Rs. 7,41,312/-. The other amounts awarded by the High Court under various heads stands as it is. We have enhanced the compensation for the loss of income due to disability caused; as herein above.
5. The award amounts shall be paid with 8% interest per annum as directed by the High Court from the date of this order after deducting the amounts already paid.
6. The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
1 (2011) 13 SCC 236
