Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
2026 INSC 29
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No…………. of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.7347 of 2024)
S. Shakul Hameed
…Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited
…Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appeal is by the claimant who suffered a
disability in a motor accident, seeking enhancement of the
award amounts. The Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.2,12,800/- (Rupees two lakhs, twelve thousand and
eight hundred) which was enhanced by the High Court to
Rs.2,23,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty three
thousand) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.01.06
18:07:20 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024
3. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that
the appellant was employed as a salesman and was
earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand)
per month. However, the Tribunal only took an amount of
Rs.3,300/- (Rupees three thousand and three hundred) as
his monthly income, adopted from the Schedule applicable
1
to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and it was
left untouched by the High Court. It is argued that at least
the minimum wages applicable on the date of accident
ought to have been taken. It is also argued that the
reduction of the disability quotient to 40% as assessed by
the medical expert was without any valid cause.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation,
however, submits that the application itself was filed under
Section 163A of the MV Act. There was absolutely no
evidence to prove the employment or the income as
claimed by the appellant. The disability being functional
disability, the Tribunal and the High Court was perfectly
correct in having determined it at 40%.
1
for short, the MV Act
Page 2 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024
5. We have looked at the order of the Tribunal, and we
see that at the outset it has been mentioned that the
application is filed under Section 163A of the MV Act.
However, the compensation claimed was Rs.7,40,000/-
(Rupees seven lakhs and forty thousand) and the
averments itself indicates that the contention was that the
accident occurred because of the rash and negligent
manner in which the bus of the Corporation was being
driven. Hence, we are of the opinion that though Section
163A of the MV Act was mentioned in the application, the
claim is one under Section 166 of the MV Act.
6.
As far as the income is concerned, it has to be noticed
that though the appellant had claimed that he was a vendor
of electronic equipment, there was nothing produced to
show the employment, nor the income claimed of
Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand). However, it has to be
noticed that in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram
2
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. , this Court computed the
income of a Coolie at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand and
five hundred) per month in the year 2004. Computing a
2
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Page 3 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024
nominal increase, even a Coolie would be entitled to an
income of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month in
the year 2005 when the accident occurred. We are of the
opinion that the income of the appellant, hence can be
safely computed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per
month and the appellant being of the age of 27 years, the
multiplier applicable would be 17. There should be future
prospects of an addition of 40%, the claimant being self-
employed. The loss of compensation has to be reduced, in
accordance with the disability assessed.
7. The appellant had produced a certificate, Exhibit P-
14 wherein the disability was assessed at 60% by the
Doctor who was examined as PW-2. It is also stated in cross
examination that only skin grafting was done on the
appellant. It was hence, the disability was fixed at 50% by
the Tribunal. The High Court without any appeal by the
Insurance Company reduced the disability to 40%, which
was improper. Disability as assessed by the Tribunal
hence has to be maintained.
8. The total award amount, hence, would be modified as
follows: -
Page 4 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024
Loss of income
Rs.5000 x 12 x 17 x 140% x 50% = Rs.7,14,000/-
9. The compensation as above would be for the loss of
income. The amounts awarded under the conventional
heads by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court
would stand as it is. The respondent would pay the said
amounts within a period of three months from today with
interest at the rate of 7.5% as awarded by the High Court.
10. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
……..…….………….…………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
…………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 06, 2026.
Page 5 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024
2026 INSC 29
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No…………. of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.7347 of 2024)
S. Shakul Hameed
…Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited
…Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appeal is by the claimant who suffered a
disability in a motor accident, seeking enhancement of the
award amounts. The Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.2,12,800/- (Rupees two lakhs, twelve thousand and
eight hundred) which was enhanced by the High Court to
Rs.2,23,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty three
thousand) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.01.06
18:07:20 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024
3. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that
the appellant was employed as a salesman and was
earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand)
per month. However, the Tribunal only took an amount of
Rs.3,300/- (Rupees three thousand and three hundred) as
his monthly income, adopted from the Schedule applicable
1
to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and it was
left untouched by the High Court. It is argued that at least
the minimum wages applicable on the date of accident
ought to have been taken. It is also argued that the
reduction of the disability quotient to 40% as assessed by
the medical expert was without any valid cause.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation,
however, submits that the application itself was filed under
Section 163A of the MV Act. There was absolutely no
evidence to prove the employment or the income as
claimed by the appellant. The disability being functional
disability, the Tribunal and the High Court was perfectly
correct in having determined it at 40%.
1
for short, the MV Act
Page 2 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024
5. We have looked at the order of the Tribunal, and we
see that at the outset it has been mentioned that the
application is filed under Section 163A of the MV Act.
However, the compensation claimed was Rs.7,40,000/-
(Rupees seven lakhs and forty thousand) and the
averments itself indicates that the contention was that the
accident occurred because of the rash and negligent
manner in which the bus of the Corporation was being
driven. Hence, we are of the opinion that though Section
163A of the MV Act was mentioned in the application, the
claim is one under Section 166 of the MV Act.
6.
As far as the income is concerned, it has to be noticed
that though the appellant had claimed that he was a vendor
of electronic equipment, there was nothing produced to
show the employment, nor the income claimed of
Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand). However, it has to be
noticed that in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram
2
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. , this Court computed the
income of a Coolie at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand and
five hundred) per month in the year 2004. Computing a
2
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Page 3 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024
nominal increase, even a Coolie would be entitled to an
income of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month in
the year 2005 when the accident occurred. We are of the
opinion that the income of the appellant, hence can be
safely computed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per
month and the appellant being of the age of 27 years, the
multiplier applicable would be 17. There should be future
prospects of an addition of 40%, the claimant being self-
employed. The loss of compensation has to be reduced, in
accordance with the disability assessed.
7. The appellant had produced a certificate, Exhibit P-
14 wherein the disability was assessed at 60% by the
Doctor who was examined as PW-2. It is also stated in cross
examination that only skin grafting was done on the
appellant. It was hence, the disability was fixed at 50% by
the Tribunal. The High Court without any appeal by the
Insurance Company reduced the disability to 40%, which
was improper. Disability as assessed by the Tribunal
hence has to be maintained.
8. The total award amount, hence, would be modified as
follows: -
Page 4 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024
Loss of income
Rs.5000 x 12 x 17 x 140% x 50% = Rs.7,14,000/-
9. The compensation as above would be for the loss of
income. The amounts awarded under the conventional
heads by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court
would stand as it is. The respondent would pay the said
amounts within a period of three months from today with
interest at the rate of 7.5% as awarded by the High Court.
10. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
……..…….………….…………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
…………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 06, 2026.
Page 5 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.7347 of 2024