(Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.)
Jakaria Mondal @ Jakai @ Jikai ____________________ Appellant;
v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another ____________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 2633 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30072/2024)§, decided on February 17, 2025
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th August, 2023 in FMAT No. 342 of 2017 passed by the High Court at Calcutta, which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order dated 23rd September, 2016 passed in MAC No. 311 of 2013 by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Krishnagar, Nadia and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 6th June, 2013 the offending vehicle bearing No. WB-52P5415 while proceedings towards Debagram, lost control and dashed into the claimant-appellant who was standing at the side of the National Highway-34 with his motorcycle. Upon collision, he was taken to Bethnadahari Hospital, by the bystanders and subsequently to Nadia District Hospital considering the nature of injuries sustained by him and then still further to NRS Medical College and Hospital on 7th June, 2013 for advanced treatment.
4. In connection with this incident FIR No. 412/2013 was registered under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code at Kaliganj Police Station.
5. After two months of treatment at the NRS Medical College and Hospital, the claimant-appellant was discharged on 17th August, 2013, but that was not the end of his medical treatment odessey and he continued seeking medical attention at the Christian Medical College, Vellore.
6. The claimant-appellant filed an application for compensation under Section 163(A)/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,00,000/- plus cost and interest, submitting therein that as an embroider at Shabana Hand Embroidery, E-Sector, Mumbai-88 he earned Rs. 300/- per day.
7. The Tribunal, by its judgment and order, held that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident and, therefore, the owner of the said vehicle and the insurer thereof were liable to pay compensation to the claimant-appellant herein. The board of doctors at the District Hospital, Nadia, examined the disability sustained by him to be at 80%. The Order of the Tribunal is as below:—
“The petitioner/claimant do get an award of compensation of Rs. 5,49,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand and Six Hundreds Only) together with the accused simple interest thereon @6.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition that is, on 17.09.2013 till the date of realization.
The Ops, owner/insured and the insurer/insurance company both of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award of compensation.
OP No. 2 National Insurance Company Ltd. Is directed to deposit the awarded amount of compensation of Rs. 5,49,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand and Six Hundreds Only) with accrued simple interest thereon @6.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, that is on 17.09.2013 till the date of realisation to the credit of the petitioner/claimant/injured in the fixed deposit term of 10 years in consultation with a Nationalised Bank under special scheme that the fixed deposit shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the Tribunal without allowing any loan or advance. Interest on the fixed deposit shall be paid monthly and the monthly interest shall be credited automatically in the savings account of the claimant/petitioner/injured.”
The Insurance Company was directed to comply with the order within a period of two months.
8. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the claimantappellant approached the High Court. The grounds of challenge were that the Tribunal had determined the income of the claimant-appellant at Rs. 3000/- per month, whereas the claimant-appellant had adduced the evidence of two persons, one Mr. Azad S.K., as PW-3, and one Mr. Billal Mondal as PW-4, who have both testified him earning Rs. 9000/- per month; the loss of earning being computed at 80%; medical expenses; non-awarding of non-pecuniary damages; medical expenses and attendant charges and the multiplier to be employed.
9. On the aspect of income, it is observed that no document stands produced recording his employment with Shabana Hand Embroidery, neither has the claimant-appellant in his examination-in-chief stated that he worked with the persons examined as PWs 3 and 4 and as such, their testimony and the employment status is of no consequence. Neither was the finding of 80% loss of earnings nor the finding related to medical expenses, which was Rs. 60,000/-, interfered with. Given that the age of the claimant-appellant at the time of the accident was only 23, the multiplier applied should be 18 instead of 17.
10. As such the compensation given by the High Court was as under:—
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
| Monthly income | Rs. 4000/- |
| Yearly income (Rs. 4000 × 12) | Rs. 48,000/- |
| Add: 40% of the yearly income towards future prospect | Rs. 19,200/- |
| Rs. 67,200/- | |
| 80% loss of income due to disablement of 80% | Rs. 53,760/- |
| Multiplier 18 (Rs. 53,760 × 18) | Rs. 9,67,680/- |
| Add: Medical expenses | Rs. 150,000/- |
| Add: Attendant’s charges | Rs. 50,000/- |
| Total compensation | Rs. 12,27,680/- |
11. Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant is now before us. The main points of challenge taken are that the monthly income of the claimant-appellant was Rs. 9000/-; loss of earning capacity is to be calculated at 100% given he is paralyzed from the waist below and cannot function without assistance, among other similar grounds.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in calculating the compensation payable to the claimant-appellant. In the event that the Courts below found the evidence submitted by him to support his claim of having earnings @Rs. 9000/- per month, recourse should have been made to the minimum wages, as may be prescribed, for the relevant point in time, by the competent authority. We are quite amazed as to how a judicial authority, which is expected to be aware of such basics, proceeded to compute compensation on amounts taken without any basis.
13. The minimum wages associated with the relevant time are shown to be Rs. 5695.5p, which we round off to Rs. 6000/-. When it comes to loss of earnings and disability both findings are at 80%. Given the nature, extent of injury and the effect, the said injury has had on the daily life of the claimantappellant, rendering him unable to function without support, we deem it appropriate, in these facts to take the disability to be 100%. The prayer for enhancement of attendant charges was made before the High Court as well and Rs. 50,000/- stood awarded. We notice that this Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, assessed the attendant charges at Rs. 5000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 60,000/- per annum in the context of an accident that had taken place in October, 2007. In the present case, the accident took place in 2013. We can, therefore, safely apply the same metric. Attendant charges, therefore, ought to be computed at Rs. 60,000/- per annum. For non-pecuniary damages, the amount awarded, i.e., Rs. 1,50,000/-, in our view, is grossly insufficient. The opinion of the Medical Board appended as Annexure P-4 to the paper book dated 25th January 2016 records that he is an orthopaedically disabled challenged person. It further stands recorded that the person cannot walk/stand and is bedridden. The percentage of disability calculated does not have any chance of variation nor does the said finding require review.
14. In view of the aforesaid, especially keeping in mind that the claimantappellant was an embroider, the loss suffered by him is immense. Having regard to the discussion made by this Court in K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3385, we award an additional sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- over and above Rs. 1,50,000/- which already stand awarded. Consequently, under the head of non-pecuniary damages, the total amount payable shall be Rs. 6,50,000/-.
15. As a result of the discussion above, the compensation now payable to the claimant-appellant is itemized as under:—
FINAL COMPENSATION
| Head | Amount (in Rs.) |
| Income | Rs. 6000/- |
| Annual income Rs. 6000 × 12 | Rs. 72,000/- |
| Disability 100% of Rs. 72000/- | Rs. 72,000/- |
| Future prospects 40% of Rs. 72,000/- | 72,000+28,800 = Rs. 1,00,800/- |
| Multiplier @ 18 | 1,00,800 × 18 = Rs. 18,14,400/- |
| Medical Expense | Rs. 60,000/- |
| Non-pecuniary Damages | Rs. 6,50,000/- |
| Attendant charges @ Rs. 60,000 × 18 | Rs. 10,80,000/- |
| TOTAL AMOUNT | Rs. 36,04,400/- |
The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 6.5% remains unchanged, calculable from the date of filing of the claim petition. The total amount be kept in Fixed Deposit with a nationalized bank, in accordance with the original direction of the Tribunal. The civil appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
§ 2025 INSC 238
