Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1028
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023
KAVIN APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
P. SREEMANI DEVI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. The appellant-claimant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Madras High Court in C.M.A. Nos.902 of 2020 and 677
of 2021 as a result of which the amount of compensation that was
awarded to the claimant by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
came to be reduced.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 03.07.2011, he was travelling in
an Omni bus bearing registration No.KA 20A 6604 as a passenger
from Coimbatore to Chennai. There were 22 co-passengers travelling
with him. At about 10:15 PM, the said bus that was being driven by
one Mr. Balaji gave a dash to a tamarind tree that was at the left side
of the road. As a result of the said accident, various passengers
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.08.22
17:50:13 IST
Reason:
suffered grievous injuries. Insofar as the claimant is concerned, he
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 1
too suffered serious injuries resulting in 100% permanent disability.
He was required to undergo treatment for a considerable period of
time. When the accident occurred, the claimant was aged about 21
years and was pursuing the degree course in Arts. In view of the
aforesaid accident, the claimant filed M.C.O.P. No.962 of 2011
seeking compensation of an amount of Rs. 1 crore under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’).
3. Along with the aforesaid claim petition, various other claim petitions
were filed by other injured passengers who were travelling in the said
Omni bus. All the claim petitions were tried together. After considering
the affidavits filed by the contesting respondents as well as the
evidence led by the parties, the learned Member of the Claims
Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was owned by the second
respondent. The said vehicle was insured with the third respondent-
insurance company. It was also held that the accident occurred on
account of rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. On these
findings, the liability of paying compensation was saddled on the
insurance company. While determining the amount of compensation
to be awarded to the claimant, the Claims Tribunal noted that the
claimant had suffered 100% permanent physical disability. On the
basis of documentary material on record, it granted compensation
under various heads including medical expenses, future prospects,
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 2
loss of income, future medical expenses, attendant charges as well
as towards pain and suffering of family members. An amount of
Rs.67,83,866/- came to be awarded as compensation to the claimant.
4. The claimant as well as the insurance company were aggrieved by
the award dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Claims Tribunal. While
the claimant preferred C.M.A. No.902 of 2020 seeking enhancement
in the amount of compensation, the insurance company preferred
C.M.A. No.677 of 2021 challenging the quantum of compensation as
awarded. Both the appeals were heard together and by the judgment
dated 16.08.2022, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court
affirmed the findings as regards rash and negligent driving by the first
respondent and ownership of the offending vehicle as regards the
second respondent. The liability of the insurance company to satisfy
the claim for compensation was also accepted. However insofar as
the amount of monetary compensation is concerned, the High Court
was of the view that future medical expenses and attendant charges
had been granted on a higher side. The amounts granted under these
heads were thus reduced. Insofar as compensation granted towards
permanent disability, loss of enjoyment of life and amenities as well
as towards pain and sufferings of family members came to be set
aside. As a consequence, the amount of compensation as granted by
the Claims Tribunal came to be reduced by an amount of Rs. 19 lacs.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 3
Consequently, it was held that the claimant was entitled to
compensation of Rs.48,83,866/-. The appeal preferred by the
claimant was thus dismissed while the appeal preferred by the
insurance company was partly allowed. The claimant being
aggrieved by the reduction in the amount of compensation as well as
the refusal to enhance the amount of compensation has thus come
up in appeal.
5. Ms. Harsha Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submitted that the High Court was not justified in reducing the amount
of compensation by Rs. 19 lacs. There was no justification
whatsoever to hold that the evidence on record was insufficient to
support the claim for future medical expenses. As the claimant had
suffered 100% permanent disability it was obvious that he would be
required to undertake medical treatment for his entire life. There was
no justification for the High Court to have reduced the amount of
compensation under these heads. In fact, the High Court ought to
have awarded a higher amount than that granted by the Claims
Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount of
Rs. 3 lacs granted towards permanent disability came to be set aside
by the High Court without any justifiable reason. Merely because
compensation was granted towards loss of income, the same would
not justify non-grant of compensation for permanent disability.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 4
Similarly, there was no legal basis for setting aside the amount of
compensation granted towards loss of enjoyment of life and
amenities as well as pain and suffering of family members. Relying
upon the decision of this Court in K.S. Muralidhar v. R.
Subbulakshmi and another, 2024 INSC 886, it was submitted that
the claimant as well as his family members were entitled to be
granted compensation under the head “family pain and sufferings.”
In fact, the amount of Rs. 3 lacs as granted by the Claims Tribunal
was on a lower side. The High Court was also not justified in reducing
the compensation that was granted by the Claims Tribunal towards
attendant charges. In the light of injuries suffered by the claimant
resulting in permanent disability, it was obvious that the claimant
would require the services of an attendant for his entire life. In that
regard reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Kajal v.
Jagdish Chand and others, 2020 INSC 135 and Sri. Benson
George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2022
INSC 235 . It was thus submitted that the High Court not only erred in
reducing the amount of compensation that was granted by the Claims
Tribunal but also failed to enhance that amount despite substantial
evidence on record. It was thus prayed that the entire amount as
claimed in the claim petition be granted to the claimant and that the
appeals be allowed.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 5
6. On the other hand, Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel appearing for
the insurance company supported the impugned judgment and
opposed the prayer made by the claimant. It was submitted that the
High Court rightly found that as the claim for compensation towards
loss of income had been granted there was no justification for
granting a sum of Rs. 3 lacs towards permanent disability. As the
claimant failed to lead any evidence in respect of future medical
expenses, the amount of Rs. 9 lacs as awarded by the Claims
Tribunal was rightly reduced to Rs. 2 lacs. Same was the case with
regard to compensation towards attendant charges. There was no
basis whatsoever for granting the amount of Rs. 6 lacs as awarded
by the Claims Tribunal. The reasons for setting aside the
compensation towards pain and suffering of the family members were
also correct and the same did not call for any interference. In any
event, it was submitted that considering the nature of evidence
brought on record by the claimant, the High Court was justified in
reducing the amount of compensation from that which was granted
by the Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that
there was no case made out to further enhance the amount of
compensation as sought by the claimant. It was therefore urged that
there was no merit in the appeals and same were liable to be
dismissed.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 6
Mr. Nikhil Swami, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the
vehicle also opposed the appeals.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with
their assistance we have also perused the documentary material on
record. At the outset, it may be stated that the findings recorded by
the Claims Tribunal as regards occurrence of the accident, the
offending vehicle being driven by the first respondent, ownership of
the offending vehicle as well as the liability of the insurance company
to satisfy the claim for compensation have been affirmed by the High
Court. These findings are not under challenge by any of the
respondents in these appeals. It is only the claimant who is aggrieved
by the reduction in the amount of compensation from that which was
granted by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, the only aspect to be
considered in these appeals is the prayer for enhancement of
compensation as made by the claimant by treating all other findings
as recorded being accepted by the respondents.
8. Having perused the material on record, we find that the High Court
was not justified in reducing the quantum of compensation that was
awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It may be noted that the fact that the
claimant had suffered 100% disability and that he was in a vegetative
state was not questioned by the owner of the vehicle or the insurance
company. The age of the claimant was 21 years when the accident
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 7
took place. He was pursuing his education at that point of time.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the Claims
Tribunal was of the view that even after being discharged from
hospital, he would be required to undergo periodical medical check-
ups. Future medical expenses were calculated at the rate of
Rs. 3,000/- per month for a duration of 25 years and on that basis an
amount of Rs. 9 lacs came to be awarded. The High Court was of the
opinion that the aforesaid amount as granted was excessive though
it was of the view that the claimant would require some amount for
such expenses. It is for this reason that the amount granted towards
future medical expenses was reduced from Rs. 9 lacs to Rs. 2 lacs.
9. We find that this reduction in the amount granted towards future
medical expenses is totally unjustified. Though the figure of
Rs. 3,000/- per month as granted appears to be reasonable, in our
view restricting the amount of future medical expenses only for a
period of 25 years appears to be unjustified. As noted above, the
claimant was aged about 21 years when the accident took place. If
the amount of future medical expenses is restricted only for a further
duration of 25 years, it would meet such expenses till the claimant
attains the age of 46 years. In our view, the amount granted towards
future medical expenses deserves to be enhanced keeping in view
the average life expectancy. Taking an overall view of the matter, an
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 8
amount of Rs. 15 lacs towards future medical expenses would meet
the ends of justice. Part of the said amount if invested by the claimant
on its receipt would earn interest and would enable the claimant to
tide over future expenses in the latter part of his life. Accordingly, the
amount of compensation granted towards future medical expenses
stands enhanced to Rs. 15 lacs.
10. The Claims Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards loss of
enjoyment of life and amenities. This amount however has been set
aside by the High Court without assigning any reason whatsoever. It
cannot be gathered from the impugned judgment as to what weighed
with the High Court while setting aside the grant of compensation
under this head. In the light of the permanent disability suffered by
the claimant, the said amount of compensation as awarded did not
warrant any interference. The award of an amount of Rs. 3 lacs
towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities thus stands restored.
11. Coming to the grant of compensation towards attendant charges, the
Claims Tribunal was of the view that an amount of Rs. 6 lacs could
be granted under the said head. The High Court however was
pleased to reduce the aforesaid amount to Rs. 3 lacs by observing
that Rs. 6 lacs appeared to be excessive. In our view, the claimant
having suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 100%,
he would definitely require assistance during his further life. It has
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 9
come in the evidence of the claimant that he was required to use a
water bed for his comfort considering his handicap. He was also
required to use a wheelchair even for attending natures’ call. On that
basis, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month for a period of 25 years
came to be awarded. In our view, again considering the nature of
disability suffered by the claimant he would require the services of an
attendant for the rest of his life. The claimant being aged only 21
years when the accident took place, a lumpsum grant of Rs. 10 lacs
towards attendant charges for the rest of his life would meet the ends
of justice. As noted above, if the claimant invests part of this amount
of compensation, he would receive interest on such invested amount
that would take care of his future expenses under this head.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 10 lacs is granted towards attendant
charges.
12. The Claims Tribunal was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 3 lacs
towards pain and suffering to the family members of the claimant.
This was done after relying upon the decision of the Division Bench
of Madras High Court in Dhamodaran (deceased) and others vs.
Bhaskar Sekar and another (C.M.A. Nos. 1646 of 2015 and 1301
of 2017 dated 19.12.2018) . The High Court however was pleased to
set aside the grant of compensation under this head, again without
assigning any reason. When the Claims Tribunal had awarded
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 10
compensation under the head of pain and suffering of family
members by relying upon the judgment of the High Court, another co-
ordinate Bench of the same High Court could not have ignored the
said judgment while setting aside the grant of such compensation by
the Claims Tribunal. We do not find any reason whatsoever to deny
the claimant the grant of compensation under this head. Accordingly,
the compensation of Rs. 3 lacs towards pain and suffering of family
members stands restored.
13. The Claims Tribunal further granted an amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards
permanent disability suffered by the claimant. This was after taking
into consideration the 100% disability suffered by the claimant. The
High Court however set aside the grant of compensation under this
head by observing that as compensation towards loss of income had
been granted, further amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards permanent
disability was not admissible. We do not find any basis whatsoever
for this approach of the High Court. The grant of compensation for
loss of future income is a distinct head from the one under which
compensation is granted for permanent disability. In the light of the
fact that the claimant suffered 100% permanent disability and was
living in a vegetative state, the High Court was not justified in setting
aside the grant of compensation under this head. In our view,
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 11
considering the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, he would
be entitled to amount of Rs. 5 lacs under this head.
14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the findings recorded by the
High Court for reducing the amount of compensation to the extent of
Rs. 19 lacs from what was awarded by the Claims Tribunal are
unsustainable and thus set aside. Instead, it is held that the claimant
would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 82,83,866/- as compensation
under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. The unpaid amount of
compensation shall be paid to the appellant within a period of four
weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as
directed by the Claims Tribunal.
15. The civil appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
…………………………....J.
[N. V. ANJARIA]
…………………………....J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 22, 2025.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 12
2025 INSC 1028
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023
KAVIN APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
P. SREEMANI DEVI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. The appellant-claimant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Madras High Court in C.M.A. Nos.902 of 2020 and 677
of 2021 as a result of which the amount of compensation that was
awarded to the claimant by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
came to be reduced.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 03.07.2011, he was travelling in
an Omni bus bearing registration No.KA 20A 6604 as a passenger
from Coimbatore to Chennai. There were 22 co-passengers travelling
with him. At about 10:15 PM, the said bus that was being driven by
one Mr. Balaji gave a dash to a tamarind tree that was at the left side
of the road. As a result of the said accident, various passengers
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.08.22
17:50:13 IST
Reason:
suffered grievous injuries. Insofar as the claimant is concerned, he
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 1
too suffered serious injuries resulting in 100% permanent disability.
He was required to undergo treatment for a considerable period of
time. When the accident occurred, the claimant was aged about 21
years and was pursuing the degree course in Arts. In view of the
aforesaid accident, the claimant filed M.C.O.P. No.962 of 2011
seeking compensation of an amount of Rs. 1 crore under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’).
3. Along with the aforesaid claim petition, various other claim petitions
were filed by other injured passengers who were travelling in the said
Omni bus. All the claim petitions were tried together. After considering
the affidavits filed by the contesting respondents as well as the
evidence led by the parties, the learned Member of the Claims
Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was owned by the second
respondent. The said vehicle was insured with the third respondent-
insurance company. It was also held that the accident occurred on
account of rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. On these
findings, the liability of paying compensation was saddled on the
insurance company. While determining the amount of compensation
to be awarded to the claimant, the Claims Tribunal noted that the
claimant had suffered 100% permanent physical disability. On the
basis of documentary material on record, it granted compensation
under various heads including medical expenses, future prospects,
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 2
loss of income, future medical expenses, attendant charges as well
as towards pain and suffering of family members. An amount of
Rs.67,83,866/- came to be awarded as compensation to the claimant.
4. The claimant as well as the insurance company were aggrieved by
the award dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Claims Tribunal. While
the claimant preferred C.M.A. No.902 of 2020 seeking enhancement
in the amount of compensation, the insurance company preferred
C.M.A. No.677 of 2021 challenging the quantum of compensation as
awarded. Both the appeals were heard together and by the judgment
dated 16.08.2022, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court
affirmed the findings as regards rash and negligent driving by the first
respondent and ownership of the offending vehicle as regards the
second respondent. The liability of the insurance company to satisfy
the claim for compensation was also accepted. However insofar as
the amount of monetary compensation is concerned, the High Court
was of the view that future medical expenses and attendant charges
had been granted on a higher side. The amounts granted under these
heads were thus reduced. Insofar as compensation granted towards
permanent disability, loss of enjoyment of life and amenities as well
as towards pain and sufferings of family members came to be set
aside. As a consequence, the amount of compensation as granted by
the Claims Tribunal came to be reduced by an amount of Rs. 19 lacs.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 3
Consequently, it was held that the claimant was entitled to
compensation of Rs.48,83,866/-. The appeal preferred by the
claimant was thus dismissed while the appeal preferred by the
insurance company was partly allowed. The claimant being
aggrieved by the reduction in the amount of compensation as well as
the refusal to enhance the amount of compensation has thus come
up in appeal.
5. Ms. Harsha Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submitted that the High Court was not justified in reducing the amount
of compensation by Rs. 19 lacs. There was no justification
whatsoever to hold that the evidence on record was insufficient to
support the claim for future medical expenses. As the claimant had
suffered 100% permanent disability it was obvious that he would be
required to undertake medical treatment for his entire life. There was
no justification for the High Court to have reduced the amount of
compensation under these heads. In fact, the High Court ought to
have awarded a higher amount than that granted by the Claims
Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount of
Rs. 3 lacs granted towards permanent disability came to be set aside
by the High Court without any justifiable reason. Merely because
compensation was granted towards loss of income, the same would
not justify non-grant of compensation for permanent disability.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 4
Similarly, there was no legal basis for setting aside the amount of
compensation granted towards loss of enjoyment of life and
amenities as well as pain and suffering of family members. Relying
upon the decision of this Court in K.S. Muralidhar v. R.
Subbulakshmi and another, 2024 INSC 886, it was submitted that
the claimant as well as his family members were entitled to be
granted compensation under the head “family pain and sufferings.”
In fact, the amount of Rs. 3 lacs as granted by the Claims Tribunal
was on a lower side. The High Court was also not justified in reducing
the compensation that was granted by the Claims Tribunal towards
attendant charges. In the light of injuries suffered by the claimant
resulting in permanent disability, it was obvious that the claimant
would require the services of an attendant for his entire life. In that
regard reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Kajal v.
Jagdish Chand and others, 2020 INSC 135 and Sri. Benson
George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2022
INSC 235 . It was thus submitted that the High Court not only erred in
reducing the amount of compensation that was granted by the Claims
Tribunal but also failed to enhance that amount despite substantial
evidence on record. It was thus prayed that the entire amount as
claimed in the claim petition be granted to the claimant and that the
appeals be allowed.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 5
6. On the other hand, Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel appearing for
the insurance company supported the impugned judgment and
opposed the prayer made by the claimant. It was submitted that the
High Court rightly found that as the claim for compensation towards
loss of income had been granted there was no justification for
granting a sum of Rs. 3 lacs towards permanent disability. As the
claimant failed to lead any evidence in respect of future medical
expenses, the amount of Rs. 9 lacs as awarded by the Claims
Tribunal was rightly reduced to Rs. 2 lacs. Same was the case with
regard to compensation towards attendant charges. There was no
basis whatsoever for granting the amount of Rs. 6 lacs as awarded
by the Claims Tribunal. The reasons for setting aside the
compensation towards pain and suffering of the family members were
also correct and the same did not call for any interference. In any
event, it was submitted that considering the nature of evidence
brought on record by the claimant, the High Court was justified in
reducing the amount of compensation from that which was granted
by the Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that
there was no case made out to further enhance the amount of
compensation as sought by the claimant. It was therefore urged that
there was no merit in the appeals and same were liable to be
dismissed.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 6
Mr. Nikhil Swami, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the
vehicle also opposed the appeals.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with
their assistance we have also perused the documentary material on
record. At the outset, it may be stated that the findings recorded by
the Claims Tribunal as regards occurrence of the accident, the
offending vehicle being driven by the first respondent, ownership of
the offending vehicle as well as the liability of the insurance company
to satisfy the claim for compensation have been affirmed by the High
Court. These findings are not under challenge by any of the
respondents in these appeals. It is only the claimant who is aggrieved
by the reduction in the amount of compensation from that which was
granted by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, the only aspect to be
considered in these appeals is the prayer for enhancement of
compensation as made by the claimant by treating all other findings
as recorded being accepted by the respondents.
8. Having perused the material on record, we find that the High Court
was not justified in reducing the quantum of compensation that was
awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It may be noted that the fact that the
claimant had suffered 100% disability and that he was in a vegetative
state was not questioned by the owner of the vehicle or the insurance
company. The age of the claimant was 21 years when the accident
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 7
took place. He was pursuing his education at that point of time.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the Claims
Tribunal was of the view that even after being discharged from
hospital, he would be required to undergo periodical medical check-
ups. Future medical expenses were calculated at the rate of
Rs. 3,000/- per month for a duration of 25 years and on that basis an
amount of Rs. 9 lacs came to be awarded. The High Court was of the
opinion that the aforesaid amount as granted was excessive though
it was of the view that the claimant would require some amount for
such expenses. It is for this reason that the amount granted towards
future medical expenses was reduced from Rs. 9 lacs to Rs. 2 lacs.
9. We find that this reduction in the amount granted towards future
medical expenses is totally unjustified. Though the figure of
Rs. 3,000/- per month as granted appears to be reasonable, in our
view restricting the amount of future medical expenses only for a
period of 25 years appears to be unjustified. As noted above, the
claimant was aged about 21 years when the accident took place. If
the amount of future medical expenses is restricted only for a further
duration of 25 years, it would meet such expenses till the claimant
attains the age of 46 years. In our view, the amount granted towards
future medical expenses deserves to be enhanced keeping in view
the average life expectancy. Taking an overall view of the matter, an
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 8
amount of Rs. 15 lacs towards future medical expenses would meet
the ends of justice. Part of the said amount if invested by the claimant
on its receipt would earn interest and would enable the claimant to
tide over future expenses in the latter part of his life. Accordingly, the
amount of compensation granted towards future medical expenses
stands enhanced to Rs. 15 lacs.
10. The Claims Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards loss of
enjoyment of life and amenities. This amount however has been set
aside by the High Court without assigning any reason whatsoever. It
cannot be gathered from the impugned judgment as to what weighed
with the High Court while setting aside the grant of compensation
under this head. In the light of the permanent disability suffered by
the claimant, the said amount of compensation as awarded did not
warrant any interference. The award of an amount of Rs. 3 lacs
towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities thus stands restored.
11. Coming to the grant of compensation towards attendant charges, the
Claims Tribunal was of the view that an amount of Rs. 6 lacs could
be granted under the said head. The High Court however was
pleased to reduce the aforesaid amount to Rs. 3 lacs by observing
that Rs. 6 lacs appeared to be excessive. In our view, the claimant
having suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 100%,
he would definitely require assistance during his further life. It has
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 9
come in the evidence of the claimant that he was required to use a
water bed for his comfort considering his handicap. He was also
required to use a wheelchair even for attending natures’ call. On that
basis, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month for a period of 25 years
came to be awarded. In our view, again considering the nature of
disability suffered by the claimant he would require the services of an
attendant for the rest of his life. The claimant being aged only 21
years when the accident took place, a lumpsum grant of Rs. 10 lacs
towards attendant charges for the rest of his life would meet the ends
of justice. As noted above, if the claimant invests part of this amount
of compensation, he would receive interest on such invested amount
that would take care of his future expenses under this head.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 10 lacs is granted towards attendant
charges.
12. The Claims Tribunal was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 3 lacs
towards pain and suffering to the family members of the claimant.
This was done after relying upon the decision of the Division Bench
of Madras High Court in Dhamodaran (deceased) and others vs.
Bhaskar Sekar and another (C.M.A. Nos. 1646 of 2015 and 1301
of 2017 dated 19.12.2018) . The High Court however was pleased to
set aside the grant of compensation under this head, again without
assigning any reason. When the Claims Tribunal had awarded
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 10
compensation under the head of pain and suffering of family
members by relying upon the judgment of the High Court, another co-
ordinate Bench of the same High Court could not have ignored the
said judgment while setting aside the grant of such compensation by
the Claims Tribunal. We do not find any reason whatsoever to deny
the claimant the grant of compensation under this head. Accordingly,
the compensation of Rs. 3 lacs towards pain and suffering of family
members stands restored.
13. The Claims Tribunal further granted an amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards
permanent disability suffered by the claimant. This was after taking
into consideration the 100% disability suffered by the claimant. The
High Court however set aside the grant of compensation under this
head by observing that as compensation towards loss of income had
been granted, further amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards permanent
disability was not admissible. We do not find any basis whatsoever
for this approach of the High Court. The grant of compensation for
loss of future income is a distinct head from the one under which
compensation is granted for permanent disability. In the light of the
fact that the claimant suffered 100% permanent disability and was
living in a vegetative state, the High Court was not justified in setting
aside the grant of compensation under this head. In our view,
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 11
considering the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, he would
be entitled to amount of Rs. 5 lacs under this head.
14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the findings recorded by the
High Court for reducing the amount of compensation to the extent of
Rs. 19 lacs from what was awarded by the Claims Tribunal are
unsustainable and thus set aside. Instead, it is held that the claimant
would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 82,83,866/- as compensation
under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. The unpaid amount of
compensation shall be paid to the appellant within a period of four
weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as
directed by the Claims Tribunal.
15. The civil appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
…………………………....J.
[N. V. ANJARIA]
…………………………....J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 22, 2025.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023 12