Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1179
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.12567/2024
MOHAMMED MASOOD …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
& ANR. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
N.V. Anjaria
Heard learned counsels for the respective
parties.
2. The present appeal preferred by the original
claimant is directed against the judgment and order
dated 23.01.2020 of the High Court of Karnataka in
M.F.A. No.2903 of 2018 (MV), whereby the High Court
allowed in part the appeal of the insurance company,
Signature Not Verified
reducing the amount of compensation, and giving
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.09.26
18:33:29 IST
Reason:
consequential directions.
Page 1 of 8
3. The facts briefly stated are inter alia that the
appellant-claimant suffered serious injuries in the
vehicular accident which took place on 01.12.2015.
He was a loader in the lorry travelling from Kunigal to
Nelamangala. At about 2.50 a.m. near NH-75 Road,
the said lorry driven at a high speed and in negligent
manner, dashed with an unknown ongoing vehicle.
The appellant sustained injuries in the right leg and
his leg was required to be amputated below the knee.
A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Tribunal’) seeking compensation of
Rs.35,00,000/-
3.1 While assessing the compensation for the 23
years injured appellant, the took the monthly income
of the appellant-claimant to be Rs.9,000/- at the time
of the accident. However, the claimant (PW-1) asserted
his monthly wages to be Rs.15,600/. Because of
amputation of the right leg, the medical evidence
registered that the disability of the left lower limb was
Page 2 of 8
70%. The Tribunal took the disability for the whole
body to be 85%. Multiplier of 18 was applied to
calculate the compensation. The final compensation
totalling Rs.19,35,400/- was awarded.
3.2 The different heads under which the amounts
were awarded, as under,
Pain and sufferings 50,000/-
Food and attendant charges 48,000/-
Future loss of income 16,52,400/-
Loss of enjoyment of life 50,000/-
Conveyance charges 10,000/-
Future medical treatment 1,00,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects 25,000/-
Total Rs. 19,35,400/-
3.3 Against the aforesaid judgment and award of
the Tribunal, the insurance company preferred an
appeal before the High Court. The High Court took a
different view in respect of the income of the injured-
appellant to take it to be Rs.8,000/- instead of
Rs.9,000/- taken by Tribunal.
3.4 The High Court was of the view that since
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 the
Page 3 of 8
maximum income that could be considered is
Rs.8,000/- the said figure should have been adopted
towards the income of the injured appellant. It was
observed by the High Court as under, extracting from
paragraph 10,
“Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
claimant was aged about 23 years; though he
has contended that he was earning Rs.16,500/-
per month, under the Workmen's Compensation
Act, the maximum income that could be
considered is only Rs.8,000/- per month. Since
this is a case of injury, only 60% of that should
be considered for calculating the compensation,
which comes to Rs.4,800/- per month. In that
the compensation is required to be considered
taking into account the percentage of disability
that he has suffered. In the instant case, the
doctor who has treated the claimant has
adduced evidence indicating that the claimant
has suffered the disability to an extent of 85%. If
the evidence of the doctor is accepted, then the
compensation that the claimant would be
entitled to is on the basis of the factor which is
applicable to the case on hand, i.e., 219.95”
3.5 Consequentially, as per the calculation
provided in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment,
the compensation was reduced by the High Court
from 19,35,400/- to 10,41,022/-.
4. In the present appeal, the appellant-claimant
has raised two contentions. Firstly that the High
Court committed an error in taking the income with
Page 4 of 8
reference to the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
thereby reducing the figure of income which was
considered and applied by the Tribunal. In this
regard, the appellant relied on the decision of this
Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs.
1
Mastan and Anr. .
4.1 The second contention was in respect of not
adding future prospects in arriving at the total
compensation. It was submitted that the addition of
40% of the established income should have been
granted when the injured was below 40 years in the
light of the decision in National Insurance Company
2
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi .
5. The first limb of submission has substance.
The appellant chose to file a claim petition for
compensation in respect of injuries he suffered in the
accident. After consent by the parties, the Tribunal
adjudicated the same and assessed the income to be
Rs.9,000/- per month to calculate the amount of
1
(2006) 2 SCC 641
2
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 5 of 8
compensation accordingly. The Tribunal having
determined the compensation on that basis, the High
Court misdirected itself in applying the criteria under
the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923 to take the view that the income of the appellant-
claimant was liable to be considered at Rs.8,000/-.
The High Court consequently reduced the
compensation.
5.1 It was not permissible in law for the High
Court to apply the parameters under Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 regarding fixing of income
when the compensation was assessed and fixed by the
Tribunal in a claim petition under Section 166 of the
M.V. Act by applying principles under the said Act.
1
5.2 In Mastan & Anr. (supra) , this Court
observed,
“Section 167 of the 1988 Act statutorily provides
for an option to the claimant stating that where
the death of or bodily injury to any person gives
rise to a claim for compensation under the 1988
Act as also the 1923 Act, the person entitled to
compensation may without prejudice to the
provisions of Chapter X claim such
compensation under either of those Acts but not
under both. Section 167 contains a non obstante
clause providing for such an option
Page 6 of 8
notwithstanding anything contained in the 1923
Act.” (Para 22)
The issue stand answered by this Court in Mastan &
1
Anr. (supra) , which held that once the remedy under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was elected to be
pursued by the claimant and the Tribunal adjudicated
the compensation by applying the criteria and fixing
the income, falling back upon the parameters under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, was not
permissible. The insurer could not have raised such a
defence seeking to apply the provisions of Workmen’s
Compensation Act. Both the remedies are different.
6. In the aforesaid view, the reasons supplied
by the High Court in paragraph 10 and consequential
reduction in the compensation could not be
permitted to stand. The compensation awarded by
the Tribunal on the basis of income of Rs.9,000/-has
to be restored.
6.1 As far as ground of non-adding of ‘future
prospects’ raised by the appellant is concerned, it
would not be permissible for this Court to go into it
Page 7 of 8
and entertain the same in view that the appellant did
not file any appeal to challenge the judgment and
order of the Tribunal. It was the insurance company
who approached the High Court.
6.2 Accordingly, the judgment and order of the
High Court dated 23.01.2020 in M.F.A. No.2903 of
2018 is set aside. The impugned judgment and award
of the Tribunal stands restored.
7. The present appeal is allowed accordingly.
………………………………….. J.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
…..…………………………….. J.
N.V. ANJARIA
NEW DELHI;
September 26, 2025
Page 8 of 8
2025 INSC 1179
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.12567/2024
MOHAMMED MASOOD …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
& ANR. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
N.V. Anjaria
Heard learned counsels for the respective
parties.
2. The present appeal preferred by the original
claimant is directed against the judgment and order
dated 23.01.2020 of the High Court of Karnataka in
M.F.A. No.2903 of 2018 (MV), whereby the High Court
allowed in part the appeal of the insurance company,
Signature Not Verified
reducing the amount of compensation, and giving
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.09.26
18:33:29 IST
Reason:
consequential directions.
Page 1 of 8
3. The facts briefly stated are inter alia that the
appellant-claimant suffered serious injuries in the
vehicular accident which took place on 01.12.2015.
He was a loader in the lorry travelling from Kunigal to
Nelamangala. At about 2.50 a.m. near NH-75 Road,
the said lorry driven at a high speed and in negligent
manner, dashed with an unknown ongoing vehicle.
The appellant sustained injuries in the right leg and
his leg was required to be amputated below the knee.
A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Tribunal’) seeking compensation of
Rs.35,00,000/-
3.1 While assessing the compensation for the 23
years injured appellant, the took the monthly income
of the appellant-claimant to be Rs.9,000/- at the time
of the accident. However, the claimant (PW-1) asserted
his monthly wages to be Rs.15,600/. Because of
amputation of the right leg, the medical evidence
registered that the disability of the left lower limb was
Page 2 of 8
70%. The Tribunal took the disability for the whole
body to be 85%. Multiplier of 18 was applied to
calculate the compensation. The final compensation
totalling Rs.19,35,400/- was awarded.
3.2 The different heads under which the amounts
were awarded, as under,
Pain and sufferings 50,000/-
Food and attendant charges 48,000/-
Future loss of income 16,52,400/-
Loss of enjoyment of life 50,000/-
Conveyance charges 10,000/-
Future medical treatment 1,00,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects 25,000/-
Total Rs. 19,35,400/-
3.3 Against the aforesaid judgment and award of
the Tribunal, the insurance company preferred an
appeal before the High Court. The High Court took a
different view in respect of the income of the injured-
appellant to take it to be Rs.8,000/- instead of
Rs.9,000/- taken by Tribunal.
3.4 The High Court was of the view that since
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 the
Page 3 of 8
maximum income that could be considered is
Rs.8,000/- the said figure should have been adopted
towards the income of the injured appellant. It was
observed by the High Court as under, extracting from
paragraph 10,
“Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
claimant was aged about 23 years; though he
has contended that he was earning Rs.16,500/-
per month, under the Workmen's Compensation
Act, the maximum income that could be
considered is only Rs.8,000/- per month. Since
this is a case of injury, only 60% of that should
be considered for calculating the compensation,
which comes to Rs.4,800/- per month. In that
the compensation is required to be considered
taking into account the percentage of disability
that he has suffered. In the instant case, the
doctor who has treated the claimant has
adduced evidence indicating that the claimant
has suffered the disability to an extent of 85%. If
the evidence of the doctor is accepted, then the
compensation that the claimant would be
entitled to is on the basis of the factor which is
applicable to the case on hand, i.e., 219.95”
3.5 Consequentially, as per the calculation
provided in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment,
the compensation was reduced by the High Court
from 19,35,400/- to 10,41,022/-.
4. In the present appeal, the appellant-claimant
has raised two contentions. Firstly that the High
Court committed an error in taking the income with
Page 4 of 8
reference to the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
thereby reducing the figure of income which was
considered and applied by the Tribunal. In this
regard, the appellant relied on the decision of this
Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs.
1
Mastan and Anr. .
4.1 The second contention was in respect of not
adding future prospects in arriving at the total
compensation. It was submitted that the addition of
40% of the established income should have been
granted when the injured was below 40 years in the
light of the decision in National Insurance Company
2
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi .
5. The first limb of submission has substance.
The appellant chose to file a claim petition for
compensation in respect of injuries he suffered in the
accident. After consent by the parties, the Tribunal
adjudicated the same and assessed the income to be
Rs.9,000/- per month to calculate the amount of
1
(2006) 2 SCC 641
2
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 5 of 8
compensation accordingly. The Tribunal having
determined the compensation on that basis, the High
Court misdirected itself in applying the criteria under
the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923 to take the view that the income of the appellant-
claimant was liable to be considered at Rs.8,000/-.
The High Court consequently reduced the
compensation.
5.1 It was not permissible in law for the High
Court to apply the parameters under Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 regarding fixing of income
when the compensation was assessed and fixed by the
Tribunal in a claim petition under Section 166 of the
M.V. Act by applying principles under the said Act.
1
5.2 In Mastan & Anr. (supra) , this Court
observed,
“Section 167 of the 1988 Act statutorily provides
for an option to the claimant stating that where
the death of or bodily injury to any person gives
rise to a claim for compensation under the 1988
Act as also the 1923 Act, the person entitled to
compensation may without prejudice to the
provisions of Chapter X claim such
compensation under either of those Acts but not
under both. Section 167 contains a non obstante
clause providing for such an option
Page 6 of 8
notwithstanding anything contained in the 1923
Act.” (Para 22)
The issue stand answered by this Court in Mastan &
1
Anr. (supra) , which held that once the remedy under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was elected to be
pursued by the claimant and the Tribunal adjudicated
the compensation by applying the criteria and fixing
the income, falling back upon the parameters under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, was not
permissible. The insurer could not have raised such a
defence seeking to apply the provisions of Workmen’s
Compensation Act. Both the remedies are different.
6. In the aforesaid view, the reasons supplied
by the High Court in paragraph 10 and consequential
reduction in the compensation could not be
permitted to stand. The compensation awarded by
the Tribunal on the basis of income of Rs.9,000/-has
to be restored.
6.1 As far as ground of non-adding of ‘future
prospects’ raised by the appellant is concerned, it
would not be permissible for this Court to go into it
Page 7 of 8
and entertain the same in view that the appellant did
not file any appeal to challenge the judgment and
order of the Tribunal. It was the insurance company
who approached the High Court.
6.2 Accordingly, the judgment and order of the
High Court dated 23.01.2020 in M.F.A. No.2903 of
2018 is set aside. The impugned judgment and award
of the Tribunal stands restored.
7. The present appeal is allowed accordingly.
………………………………….. J.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
…..…………………………….. J.
N.V. ANJARIA
NEW DELHI;
September 26, 2025
Page 8 of 8