Nikhil Subba and Ors. vs The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Ors
- Court
- High Court of Sikkim
- Case type
- MAC App.
- Decided on
- 20-03-2026
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON‟BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAC App. No.05 of 2025
Appellants : Nikhil Subba and Others
versus
Respondents : The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Company and Others
Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Rahul Rathi and Ms. Khushboo Rathi, Advocates for the
Appellants.
Mr. Prem Simon Chettri, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
None present for the Respondents No.2 & 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 20-03-2026
Date of Pronouncement : 20-03-2026
Date of Uploading : 21-03-2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The challenge in the instant Appeal is to the
computation of compensation, arrived at by the Learned Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, the
“MACT”), in MACT Case No.11 of 2024 ( Nikhil Subba and Others vs.
The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and
Others ), vide Judgment dated 26-12-2024.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants put forth the
contention that the Appellant No.1 had suffered 90% locomotor
permanent disability as duly established by Exbt-29 (collectively),
Disability Certificate of the Department of Empowerment of
Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of India, issued by the Medical
MAC App. No.05 of 2025 2
Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others
Authority, East District, Sikkim. The document specified that the
Appellant had been in a road traffic accident and was thereby
afflicted with traumatic paraplegia . The Appellant No.1 had also
relied on Exbt-8, Wound Certificate which detailed his injuries
including fracture of vertebrae. The MACT however failed to access
his disability as 100%, which flies in the face of the decision of this
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Court in
1
Yoel Subba and Others which had relied on the Judgment of the
2
Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another while
assessing such disability.
(i) Advancing other grounds for the Appeal and walking
this Court through the computation made by the MACT, Learned
Counsel for the Appellants contended that, the annual income of
the Appellant No.1 prior to the accident was ₹ 3,60,000/- (Rupees
three lakhs and sixty thousand) only. However, while calculating
the loss of future earnings per annum, the MACT took into
consideration only 90% of the income prior to his accident and
thereby placed it erroneously at ₹ 3,24,000/- (Rupees three lakhs
and twenty four thousand) only, instead of ₹ 3,60,000/- (Rupees
three lakhs and sixty thousand) only. It was also urged that for
loss of future earnings, 40% ought to have been included in the
computation, in view of the fact that, the Appellant No.1 was
thirty-three years old at the time of the accident. However, the
MACT failed to do so and instead employed the multiplier of „16‟ to
₹ 3,24,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and twenty four thousand) only,
to arrive at an amount of ₹ 51,84,000/- (Rupees fifty one lakhs
and eighty four thousand) only. There is no challenge to the
1
2024 SCC OnLine Sikk 28
2
(2011) 1 SCC 343
MAC App. No.05 of 2025 3
Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others
adoption of 16 as multiplier. That, the amount for service of
attendant was pegged at ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only,
whereas this Court in Yoel Subba ( supra ), by reference to several
Judgments of the Supreme Court had allowed a sum of ₹
32,40,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs and forty thousand) only, to
the victim therein. On this facet however, Learned Counsel fairly
conceded that the Appellant No.1 is not entitled to a sum of ₹
32,40,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs and forty thousand) only, for
services of an attendant as computed in Yoel Subba ( supra ) but
would definitely be entitled to ₹ 28,80,000/- (Rupees twenty eight
lakhs and eighty thousand) only. It was next argued that the fact
of the Appellant‟s disability has not been decimated during his
cross-examination. It was also admitted that the Appellants are
not entitled to “cost of litigation” granted by the MACT as no
compensation under this head has been computed by any of the
Judgments of the Supreme Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended
that although a Cross Appeal has not been filed however the
amount granted by the MACT for pain and suffering and loss of
amenities is exorbitant, having been placed at ₹ 15,00,000/-
(Rupees fifteen lakhs) only and ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs)
only, respectively, when in Yoel Subba ( supra ) the amount under a
collective head comprising of pain, suffering and loss of amenities
was calculated at ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only. Hence,
the amount under the said head should be confined to not more
than ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only.
4. Due consideration has been afforded to the
submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties. I have also
MAC App. No.05 of 2025 4
Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others
perused the entire records before me, including the evidence and
documents on record.
5. Before addressing the arguments, it would be essential
to comprehend the facts of the case. The Appellant No.1, aged
thirty-three years, at the relevant time, earning about ₹
3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and sixty thousand) only, per
annum, was travelling near Singtam, East Sikkim, in a „Ford Figo‟
vehicle, bearing registration No.SK-01-P-3752, on 15-02-2021. A
Tata Truck bearing registration No.WB-73-F-4905 overtook the
Ford Figo vehicle and while doing so hit the car which was then
thrust off the road, to about fifty feet below. The Appellant No.1
the sole bread winner of his family was severely injured and
diagnosed with 90% permanent disability and traumatic
paraplegia . The Appellants were before the MACT with a Petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
compensation of ₹ 61,88,244/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs, eighty
eight thousand, two hundred and forty four) only. The MACT
granted compensation of ₹ 74,96,244/- (Rupees seventy four
lakhs, ninety six thousand, two hundred and forty four) only.
6. That having been said, in the first instance, it would be
relevant to refer to Raj Kumar ( supra ), where the Supreme Court
while dealing with the aspect of disability and loss of earning
capacity inter alia expressed its view as hereunder;
“11. What requires to be assessed by the
Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on
the earning capacity of the injured ; and after
assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in
terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of
earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method
used to determine loss of dependency). We may
however note that in some cases, on appreciation of
evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that
MAC App. No.05 of 2025 5
Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others
the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result
of the permanent disability, is approximately the
same as the percentage of permanent disability in
which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said
percentage for determination of compensation. (See
for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind
[(2010)
Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
10 SCC 254] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd. [ (2010) 10 SCC 341 ])
12. ……………………………………………………………..
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the
permanent disability on the actual earning capacity
involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first
ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on
in spite of the permanent disability and what he
could not do as a result of the permanent disability
(this is also relevant for awarding compensation
under the head of loss of amenities of life). The
second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession
and nature of work before the accident, as also his
age. The third step is to find out whether ( i ) the
claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of
livelihood, or ( ii ) whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on
the activities and functions, which he was earlier
carrying on, or ( iii ) whether he was prevented or
restricted from discharging his previous activities
and functions, but could carry on some other or
lesser scale of activities and functions so that he
continues to earn or can continue to earn his
[emphasis supplied]
livelihood. ”
(i) Learned Counsel for the Appellants had raised the
argument that the Appellant No.1 was completely bedridden post
the accident and unable to engage in day to day activities due to
his spinal injury which had paralyzed the lower portion of his body.
On examination of the documents relied on by the Appellants being
Exbt-8 and Exbt-29, it emerges without dispute that he is
paralyzed downwards from his waist. Consequent, upon the injury
to his spinal cord and limbs it is evident that he is unable to carry
out his day to day functions independently which he earlier did,
including attending nature‟s call. On account of his disability he is
also prevented from discharging his duties in his vocation as
Manager in a Cafe and other activities. In the obtaining
circumstances, being totally disabled he is deprived of his ability to
MAC App. No.05 of 2025 6
Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others
earn his livelihood. His disability can thus be assessed at 100%
and not merely 90% as assessed by the MACT.
(ii) I am also of the considered view that the MACT failed
to factor in 40% as loss of future earnings to the calculations which
is envisaged and allowed in the Judgment of National Insurance
3
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others Loss of future
earnings is thereby granted to the Appellants.
(iii) So far as the attendant charges are concerned, the
4
Supreme Court in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Others was of the
view that;
“Attendant charges
22. The attendant charges have been awarded
by the High Court @ Rs 2500 per month for 44 years,
which works out to Rs 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this
system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is
used to balance out various factors. When
compensation is awarded in lump sum, various
factors are taken into consideration. When
compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has
always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier
system should be followed not only for determining
the compensation on account of loss of income but
also for determining the attendant charges, etc. This
system was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor
Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami [ AIR 1962 SC 1 ]. The
multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the
rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the
longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such
as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various
alternative methods, the multiplier method has been
recognised as the most realistic and reasonable
method. It ensures better justice between the
parties and thus results in award of “just
compensation” within the meaning of the Act.
………………………………………..………………………………..
25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view
that the basic amount taken for determining the
attendant charges is very much on the lower side. We
must remember that this little girl is severely
suffering from incontinence, meaning that she does
not have control over her bodily functions like passing
urine and faeces. As she grows older, she will not be
able to handle her periods. She requires an attendant
virtually 24 hours a day. She requires an attendant
who though may not be medically trained but must be
capable of handling a child who is bedridden. She
would require an attendant who would ensure that
3
(2017) 16 SCC 680
4
(2020) 4 SCC 413
MAC App. No.05 of 2025 7
Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others
she does not suffer from bedsores. The claimant has
placed before us a notification of the State of Haryana
of the year 2010, wherein the wages for skilled
labourer is Rs 4846 per month. We, therefore, assess
the cost of one attendant at Rs 5000 and she will
require two attendants which works out to Rs 10,000
per month, which comes to Rs 1,20,000 p.a., and
using the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs
21,60,000 for the attendant charges for her entire
life. This takes care of all the pecuniary damages. ”
[emphasis supplied]
(iv) The MACT while computing medical attendant charges
appears not to have followed the principles laid out in Kajal ( supra ).
In the instant matter, the Appellant No.1 is a young man who will
have to suffer being bedridden, which would likely give rise to
bedsores and other allied medical issues. His wife, the Appellant
No.2 would not be competent to assist him on the medical aspect
and he would require a medically trained attendant. This Court in
Yoel Subba Kajal
( supra ), as per the decision in ( supra ) had
calculated attendant charges for one attendant for the lifetime of
the Appellant therein. The said circumstance would be applicable
in the present matter also. The details of calculation are as follows;
₹ 500 x 30 days = ₹ 15,000/- per month
₹ 15000/- x 12 months = ₹ 1,80,000/- per annum
Multiplier to be adopted is „16‟ = ₹ 28,80,000/-
[in terms of Paragraph 42 of Sarla Verma (Smt)
5
and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
— ₹ 1,80,000/- x 16]
It is appropriate to award the above amount for attendant charges
for the Appellant No.1.
(v) The MACT had granted ₹ 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen
lakhs) only, for pain and suffering and ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two
lakhs) only, for loss of amenities. However, in terms of the
Kajal Yoel Subba
decision in ( supra ), this Court in ( supra ) had
granted ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only, clubbing together
the heads under for “Pain, Suffering and loss of amenities”.
5
(2009) 6 SCC 121
MAC App. No.05 of 2025 8
Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others
(vi) More recently, in K.S. Muralidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi and
6
Another , the Supreme Court has granted compensation of ₹
15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only, for pain and suffering.
Having perused the said Judgment it emanates that the Appellant
therein was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained
injuries which resulted in 90% permanent disability on the basis of
which the amount ( supra ) was allowed by the Supreme Court. In
the instant matter, applying the same logic, the amount for “Pain,
Suffering and loss of amenities” can be computed at ₹ 15,00,000/-
(Rupees fifteen lakhs) only and is granted accordingly.
(vii) There is no reason to interfere with the actual medical
expenses of ₹ 87,244/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand, two
hundred and forty four) only, granted by the MACT as it is
indubitable. No prayer has been made for a change in the future
medical expenses, which was computed at ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees
two lakhs) only and is thus not required to be altered. Cost of
litigation is however denied as no such head has been enumerated
by the Supreme Court.
7. The compensation worked out by the MACT and by this
Court, under the “ other heads ”, are juxtaposed below for clarity;
Learned MACT High Court
1. Medical expenses
2. Future medical treatment
3. Pain and suffering
4. Loss of amenities
5. Service of attendant
6. Cost of litigation
₹ 87,244/-
1. Actual medical expenses
2. Future medical expenses
3. Pain, suffering and
loss of amenities
4. Attendant charges
₹ 87,244/-
₹ 2,00,000/-
₹ 2,00,000/-
₹ 15,00,000/-
₹ 15,00,000/-
₹ 2,00,000/-
₹ 28,80,000/-
₹ 3,00,000/-
₹ 25,000/-
₹ 23,12,244/- ₹ 46,67,244/-
Total Total
6
2024 INSC 886
MAC App. No.05 of 2025 9
Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others
8. Consequently, the total compensation which is found to
be “just compensation” is computed as follows;
Annual income of the Appellant No.1 ₹ 3,60,000.00
Add 40% of ₹ 3,60,000/- as Future Prospects (+) ₹ 1,44,000.00
[in terms of Paragraph 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra) ]
₹ 5,04,000.00
Net yearly income ₹ 5,04,000.00
Multiplier to be adopted „16‟ (₹ 5,04,000/- x 16) ₹ 80,64,000.00
[The age of the Appellant No.1 at the time of the accident being
„33‟ the relevant multiplier of „16‟ in terms of Paragraph 42 of
Sarla Verma (supra) is adopted]
Add Actual Medical Expenses (+) ₹ 87,244.00
Add Future Medical Expenses (+) ₹ 2,00,000.00
[in terms of the Judgment of Kajal (supra) ]
suffering and loss of amenities
Add Pain, (+) ₹ 15,00,000.00
[in terms of the Judgment of K.S. Muralidhar (supra) ]
Add Attendant Charges (+) ₹ 28,80,000.00
[in terms of the Judgment of Kajal (supra) ]
Total = ₹ 1,27,31,244.00
(Rupees one crore, twenty seven lakhs, thirty one thousand, two hundred and forty four) only.
9. Learned Counsel for the Appellants and Learned
Counsel for the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company submits that
pursuant to the impugned Judgment of the MACT, the Appellants
No.1 and 2 have received a cheque each, bearing No.027762 and
027760, respectively, of the ICICI Bank, dated 24-12-2025, each
for a sum of ₹ 29,23,193/- (Rupees twenty nine lakhs, twenty
three thousand, one hundred and ninety three) only. The
Appellant No.3 has also received a cheque bearing No.027761, of
the ICICI Bank, dated 24-12-2025, amounting to ₹ 29,23,192/-
(Rupees twenty nine lakhs, twenty three thousand, one hundred
and ninety two) only, totaling to a sum of ₹ 87,69,578/- (Rupees
eighty seven lakhs, sixty nine thousand, five hundred and seventy
eight) only.
10. In such circumstances, the amount received shall be
deducted from the compensation calculated today. The remaining
amount from the awarded compensation be disbursed by the
MAC App. No.05 of 2025 10
Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others
Respondent No.1-Insurance Company to the Appellant No.1 in view
of the fact that he is bedridden and requires medication and an
assistant. The Respondent No.1-Insurance Company is directed to
pay the remaining compensation with interest @ 9% per annum as
ordered, to the Appellants No.1, within one month from today,
failing which, it shall pay simple interest @ 12% per annum, from
the date of filing of the Claim Petition, i.e.,12-03-2024 till full
realisation.
11. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
12. No order as to costs.
13. Copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the Learned
MACT for information along with its original records.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
20-03-2026
Approved for reporting : Yes
sdl