Riyas vs. P. N. Shinosh

2025 INSC 1303
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6544 OF 2024

RIYAS ….Appellant (s)
VERSUS

P. N. SHINOSH & ANR. ….Respondents


JUDGMENT

N.V. ANJARIA, J.


Seeking enhancement in the motor accident
compensation, the present appeal is directed against the
th
judgment and award dated 7 January, 2020 passed by
the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam in MACA No. 89 of
2009.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.11.10
17:11:20 IST
Reason:
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur,
upon an application filed by the injured-claimants under

Page 1 of 10


Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, awarded a total
compensation of Rs. 1,73,000/- together with interest @
7% p.a. In the appeal, the High Court enhanced it
awarding additional compensation of Rs. 5,75,883/- with
interest. Further enhancement is pleaded.
3. The case pertains to a 14 years old minor student,
th
who was studying in 7 standard and suffered 77.1%
permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained
by him in the motor accident. The accident took place on
19.04.2002 at about 12.15 pm. The appellant was
travelling with other persons in an auto rickshaw bearing
registration No. KL-9K-1413. The said auto rickshaw was
hit by a lorry bearing No. KRR-6987. The lorry was owned
by respondent No. 1, was driven by respondent No.2, and
was insured with respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.
3.1 The Claims Tribunal concluded that the
accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving
by the driver of the lorry. The insurance coverage of the
said offending vehicle was not in dispute. The insurer was
held liable to indemnify the injured with compensation,

Page 2 of 10


which was assessed by the Tribunal to be Rs. 1,73,000/-
along with interest. Having been of the view that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various
heads was low, the High Court proceeded to enhance the
same.
3.2 While enhancing the compensation of the
appellant from the one awarded by the Tribunal, the High
Court applied multiplier of 15. As regards the extent of
disability arising out of the injuries sustained, the High
Court noted that as per the disability certificate dated
20.11.2019 the disability for the whole body which was
assessed by the Medical Board was 77.1%. The permanent
disability to the said extent was accepted by the
Government Pleader by filing a memo dated 25.11.2019.
The Insurance Company also did not raise any objection
to the extent disability assessed.
3.3 The monthly income for the injured was taken as
Rs. 3,620/-. After adding the future prospects at 40%,
applying multiplier of 15 and accounting for the
percentage of permanent disability, the additional

Page 3 of 10


compensation was arrived at to be Rs. 4,12,383/-. The
bystander expenses awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.
2,750/- which was enhanced to Rs. 3,300/- by the High
Court. An additional amount of Rs. 700/- from Rs. 2,200/-
to Rs. 1,500/- was awarded towards extra nourishment.
The High Court determined the medical expenses to be Rs.
53,250/- solely on the basis of the medical bills (Ext. A10).
Rs.30,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. The
amount towards loss of amenities was enhanced to Rs.
80,000/- from Rs. 8,000/. Rs. 50,000/- was granted
towards loss of marriage prospects and a further sum of
Rs. 25,000/- towards future treatment, which amount was
not to carry interest. All the above sums made to the total
additional compensation of Rs. 5,75,883/- with 8%
interest.
3.4 In the process of determining the
compensation as above, the High Court applied relevant
parameters including the law laid down by this Court
in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National

Page 4 of 10


1
Insurance Co. Ltd. . In the said case this Court laid down
the principles regarding payment of compensation for the
injuries sustained by the children resulting into
permanent disability.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker,
appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.
Varinder Kumar Sharma, for the respondent.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and before considering the rival submission, question
of enhancement of the compensation needs to be
favourably addressed. In that, a recent decision of this
Court dated 11.02.2025 in Sona (minor) vs. Manual
2
C.M. would serve as a guiding precedent. The facts in
Sona (minor) (supra) were akin to the facts of the present
case. The minor aged about 1½ years suffered serious
injuries including the brain haemorrhage and fracture of
the vertical linear skull in the accident. The victim suffered
from the Hemiplegia resulting into 75% permanent

1
(2014) 14 SCC 396
2
Civil Appeal No. 002316 of 2025

Page 5 of 10


disability. This Court applied the parameters laid down in
the various decisions of this Court to assess the
compensation under various heads.
5.1 Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, the
injured minor was 14 years of age and as laid down in the
decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs.
3
Pranay Sethi & Others , the High Court rightly applied
the multiplier of 15. The assessment of monthly income of
Rs. 3,620/- is reasonable. 40% is added towards future
prospects and applying the multiplier of 15, it brings the
amount of Rs. 9,12,240/-. Multiplying this amount with
the extent of disability which is 77.1%, the amount of
compensation to be awarded on the said score comes to
Rs. 7,03,337.04/-.
5.2 While awarding the medical expenses to the
appellant, the High Court has taken the basis of the actual
bills, overlooking that the appellant would have incurred
miscellaneous amounts towards the medical treatment

3
(2017) 16 SCC 680

Page 6 of 10


during his 22 days stay in the hospital, over and above the
actual bills in the nature of out-of-pocket expenses.
Furthermore, the appellant would be required to spent
towards the medical treatment in future also. Taking into
account such considerations, granting Rs. 50,000/- in
total towards medical expenses would be proper.
5.3 Furthermore, the appellant would be entitled
to the compensation towards the attendant charges which
is assessed to be Rs. 40,000/-. Under the head of loss of
marriage prospects, Rs. 3 lakhs deserves to be awarded.
This is in light of the parameters laid down by this Court
4
in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand . The amount of Rs. 40,000/-
towards special diet and transportation is awarded, in view
of what is laid down in Sidram v. Divisional Manager,
5
United India Insurance Ltd. . In the same way on the
basis of law laid down by this Court in K.S. Muralidhar v.
6
R. Subbulakshmi & Anr. , the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs is
awarded towards pain and suffering. Towards loss of

4
(2020) 4 SCC 413 (Para 19 and 25)
5
(2023) 3 SCC 439 (Para 89)
6
2024 SCC Online SC 3385 (Para 13 and 14)

Page 7 of 10


amenities, the High Court awarded a just sum of Rs.
80,000/- after considering the nature of injuries and the
disabilities.
5.4 Now translating in the tabular form the total
compensation as assessed above, the amounts payable
shall be as under;

Page 8 of 10

6. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant would be
entitled to total compensation of Rs. 15,13,337/- as
rounded of. Resultantly, additional compensation of Rs.
7,64,454/- shall be paid to the appellant with interest at
the same rate of 8% from date of filing of application till
realisation.
6.1 The respondent No. 3-Insurance Company is
directed to pay the additional compensation amount along
with interest as above to the appellant by crediting the
same in the bank account of the appellant within a period
of 8 weeks from today. The acknowledgement/proof of
payment to the appellant shall be produced before the
Tribunal within one week from payment made as above.

Page 9 of 10


7. The impugned judgement and award of the High
Court is modified as above. The appeal stands allowed
accordingly.
In view of disposal of the Appeal, Interlocutory
application, if any, stands disposed of.

………………………………….. J.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN



…..…………………………….. J.
N.V. ANJARIA

NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 10, 2025

Page 10 of 10