Madivalappa vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

1
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 356
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.12009 OF 2024
MADIVALAPPA …APPELLANT
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
This appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order
dated 22.09.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’)
rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, at
Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Miscellaneous
1
First Appeal No.200540 of 2014 (MV) under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the
Signature Not Verified
1
‘ 173. Appeals .—(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal
may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court:
Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the
High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded,
whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court:
Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is
satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. ’
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.03.18
17:00:02 IST
Reason:

2
appellant-claimant against the Award dated 30.10.2013 passed by the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at
2
Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT’) in Motor Vehicle Case
No.366 of 2011 and increased the compensation from Rs.2,60,200/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred), as awarded by the
MACT, to Rs.3,05,200/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Five Thousand Two
Hundred).
BRIEF FACTS:
2. On 11.07.2009, in a vehicular accident due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle being a Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation (respondent herein) bus bearing
Regn.No.MH12CH7027, the appellant, then aged 27 years sustained
grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
3. Appellant filed MVC No.366/2011 before the MACT claiming
compensation amounting to Rs.23,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three
Lakhs Fifty Thousand). In support of the claim, the appellant produced
various documents including medical records, hospital bills, the First
2
Abbreviated to ‘MVC’.

3
Information Report, the Chargesheet, Disability Certificate etc. The
respondent-corporation filed its Written Objections to the claim petition.
After hearing the parties, the MACT, upon assessing age of the
appellant-victim as 27 years and disability at 20%, awarded
compensation of Rs.2,60,200/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two
Hundred) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition till realization of the amount awarded.
4. The MACT assessed and quantified the compensation in the
following manner:

5. Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court seeking
enhancement of compensation. Considering the gravity of the injuries,

4
the High Court while allowing the appeal held that Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand) can be added to the medical expenses and with
respect to loss of income during the injury period, it can be increased
from Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand). Therefore, the High Court increased the compensation from
Rs.2,60,200/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred) to
Rs.3,05,200/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Five Thousand Two Hundred).
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT:
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court
by the Impugned Order did not enhance compensation under the head of
‘ loss of future earning ’ by using the multiplier of ‘18’ as per the judgment
of this Court in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation , 2009 (6)
SCC 121 . It was further contended that under the head of ‘ loss of future
earning ’, the MACT and the High Court, both, did not grant addition of
‘ Future Prospects ’ at 40% as per the judgment of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi , 2017 (16) SCC 680 .
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that under the head
of ‘ loss of future earning ’, the correct calculation would be Rs.4,000/-

5
(Rupees Four Thousand) (Notional income) x 12 x 18 (Multiplier) x 1.40
(Future prospects) x 20/100 = Rs.2,41,920/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty
One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty). Hence, the appellant is
seeking an enhancement of Rs.78,720/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand
Seven Hundred Twenty) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of accident.
RESPONDENT IN ABSENTIA :
8. Despite notice having been validly served, none appeared on
behalf of the sole respondent.
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
9. Having considered the matter, we find that a case for interference
has been made out.
10. With regard to the contention of the appellant that under the head
of ‘ loss of future earning ’ the multiplier needs to be ‘18’ as per the law
laid down in Sarla Verma ( supra ), we are of the view that the High Court
and MACT has not correctly applied the multiplier, as the multiplier ‘18’

6
should be applied since appellant age is assessed as 24 years by the
MACT.
11. That said, the appellant is right in submitting that as per the
decision in Pranay Sethi ( supra ), he is entitled to receive compensation
for future prospects at the rate of 40%. Hence, the correct calculation
under head of ‘ loss of future earning ’ would be Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four
Thousand) (Notional income) x 12 x 18(Multiplier) x 1.40 (Future
prospects) x 20/100 = Rs.2,41,920/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty One
Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty).
12. Further, in view of the above calculation, the appellant is entitled
for Rs.3,83,920/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Nine
Hundred Twenty) as compensation, the differential amount being
Rs.78,720/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty)
[the calculation here being Rs.3,83,920/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty
Three Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty) - Rs.3,05,200/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs Five Thousand Two Hundred)]. The amount, basis the afore-
calculation, after deducting any payment/deposit already made, be paid
to the appellant by the respondent within 30 days after receiving a copy
of this judgment with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date

7
of filing of the claim petition till realization, failure to do so shall entail an
additional interest of 8% on the principal as well as on interest for the
period of delay. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is disposed of, modifying
the Impugned Judgment in the above terms.
13. We are of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be further met by
imposing a cost of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) on the respondent
for failure to appear in and assist this Court. This too shall be paid to the
appellant within the timeline stipulated supra . Breach of such payment will
also carry the consequences indicated above.
14. The Registry shall despatch a copy of this judgment to the Managing
Director of the respondent-corporation.
………………..........................J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
…………………..................…..J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
NEW DELHI
MARCH 17, 2025