Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 821
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No…………..of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.20068 of 2022)
SURESH JATAV
APPELLANT
VERSUS
SUKHENDRA SINGH & ORS.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2.
The appellant was the claimant before the Tribunal
who claimed 100% functional disability on account of the
injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident.
3. On facts, suffice it to notice that the appellant was
travelling in an auto rickshaw on 12.08.2002 when a bus,
being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the auto
and the appellant had to be admitted in a hospital. The
appellant was hospitalized for about six days and a surgery
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.07.14
15:48:05 IST
Reason:
had to be conducted on him. An insertion was made to treat
Page 1 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022
the compound fracture suffered on the fibula of his right leg.
He also suffered a fracture to the ulna of the right hand
which required plastering. The appellant had been
regularly visiting the hospital due to his leg having not
healed. The appellant claimed that he was a skilled mason
and a person working with him was examined to prove that
he was earning an income of Rs.200 per day. The medical
treatment undergone by him and the disability was proved
by examination of the record clerk of the hospital who
produced the necessary records and the doctor who treated
the appellant.
4. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the income of
Rs.6,000/- per month and adopted only Rs.3,000/- as
monthly income. 25% disability was accepted, despite the
certificate having shown 35% disability, which the Tribunal
opined was only with respect to the right leg and hence, the
whole-body disability can only be 25%. Though, an amount
of Rs.25,000/- was claimed for medical expenses, the
Tribunal granted only in accordance with the bills produced
of Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of
Rs.3,000/- for special diet and Rs.5,000/- for pain and
Page 2 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022
suffering. A total amount of Rs.1,62,000/- was awarded by
the Tribunal.
5. On appeal to the High Court, the income was
increased to Rs.3500/- and a 40% addition was made for
future prospects. The High Court also awarded an amount of
Rs.25,000/- for future treatment and increased the amounts
for special diet to Rs.12,000/- and retained the medical
expenses at Rs.10,000/- itself. As far as pain and suffering,
the High Court enhanced it to Rs.30,000/- and an amount of
Rs.12,000/- was granted as attendant charges for six months
at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. Since the appellant, as
per the medical records, would have been laid up for about
six months, the High Court also granted an additional
amount of Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges and
Rs.21,000/- for loss of income.
6. Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
1
Alliance Insurance Company , found that a Coolie would
get an amount of Rs.4500/- as his monthly income in the year
2004. Definitely, an incremental increase of an unskilled
worker’s income can be assessed at Rs.500/- per year in
1
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Page 3 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022
which context, even an unskilled worker would earn an
income of Rs.10000/- in the year 2008. Hence, this Court is
of the opinion that the income as claimed by the appellant, a
skilled mason can be accepted. As far as disability is
concerned, the doctor has assessed it at 35% and the
Tribunal reduced it to 25% on mere conjectures. There
should be valid reasoning to go behind the opinion of an
expert, especially in the matter of assessment of disability.
In the present case, the doctor who was examined before
the Tribunal had specifically deposed that the appellant was
unable to sit down and walk and could not lift heavy
weights. He was also said to be in constant pain.
7. Considering the entire circumstances and also since
we have accepted that the claimant was a skilled mason, his
disability will have to be assessed at 35%. The evidence of
the doctor would indicate that he could not have continued
his chosen vocation.
8. On the other heads, we do not make any enhancement
with respect to the future treatment, special diet and the
attendant charges. However, for loss of income, since we
have adopted a higher income, necessarily it has to be
Page 4 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022
Rs.36,000/- for six months. The appellant suffered two
fractures, one of which was a compound fracture, treatment
of which required surgical intervention. The medical
expenses can hence be increased to Rs.20,000/-. For pain
and suffering, considering the continued partial disability it
can be increased to Rs.50,000/-. On the above reasoning,
the following amounts are awarded: -
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No…………..of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.20068 of 2022)
SURESH JATAV
APPELLANT
VERSUS
SUKHENDRA SINGH & ORS.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2.
The appellant was the claimant before the Tribunal
who claimed 100% functional disability on account of the
injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident.
3. On facts, suffice it to notice that the appellant was
travelling in an auto rickshaw on 12.08.2002 when a bus,
being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the auto
and the appellant had to be admitted in a hospital. The
appellant was hospitalized for about six days and a surgery
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.07.14
15:48:05 IST
Reason:
had to be conducted on him. An insertion was made to treat
Page 1 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022
the compound fracture suffered on the fibula of his right leg.
He also suffered a fracture to the ulna of the right hand
which required plastering. The appellant had been
regularly visiting the hospital due to his leg having not
healed. The appellant claimed that he was a skilled mason
and a person working with him was examined to prove that
he was earning an income of Rs.200 per day. The medical
treatment undergone by him and the disability was proved
by examination of the record clerk of the hospital who
produced the necessary records and the doctor who treated
the appellant.
4. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the income of
Rs.6,000/- per month and adopted only Rs.3,000/- as
monthly income. 25% disability was accepted, despite the
certificate having shown 35% disability, which the Tribunal
opined was only with respect to the right leg and hence, the
whole-body disability can only be 25%. Though, an amount
of Rs.25,000/- was claimed for medical expenses, the
Tribunal granted only in accordance with the bills produced
of Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of
Rs.3,000/- for special diet and Rs.5,000/- for pain and
Page 2 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022
suffering. A total amount of Rs.1,62,000/- was awarded by
the Tribunal.
5. On appeal to the High Court, the income was
increased to Rs.3500/- and a 40% addition was made for
future prospects. The High Court also awarded an amount of
Rs.25,000/- for future treatment and increased the amounts
for special diet to Rs.12,000/- and retained the medical
expenses at Rs.10,000/- itself. As far as pain and suffering,
the High Court enhanced it to Rs.30,000/- and an amount of
Rs.12,000/- was granted as attendant charges for six months
at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. Since the appellant, as
per the medical records, would have been laid up for about
six months, the High Court also granted an additional
amount of Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges and
Rs.21,000/- for loss of income.
6. Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
1
Alliance Insurance Company , found that a Coolie would
get an amount of Rs.4500/- as his monthly income in the year
2004. Definitely, an incremental increase of an unskilled
worker’s income can be assessed at Rs.500/- per year in
1
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Page 3 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022
which context, even an unskilled worker would earn an
income of Rs.10000/- in the year 2008. Hence, this Court is
of the opinion that the income as claimed by the appellant, a
skilled mason can be accepted. As far as disability is
concerned, the doctor has assessed it at 35% and the
Tribunal reduced it to 25% on mere conjectures. There
should be valid reasoning to go behind the opinion of an
expert, especially in the matter of assessment of disability.
In the present case, the doctor who was examined before
the Tribunal had specifically deposed that the appellant was
unable to sit down and walk and could not lift heavy
weights. He was also said to be in constant pain.
7. Considering the entire circumstances and also since
we have accepted that the claimant was a skilled mason, his
disability will have to be assessed at 35%. The evidence of
the doctor would indicate that he could not have continued
his chosen vocation.
8. On the other heads, we do not make any enhancement
with respect to the future treatment, special diet and the
attendant charges. However, for loss of income, since we
have adopted a higher income, necessarily it has to be
Page 4 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022
Rs.36,000/- for six months. The appellant suffered two
fractures, one of which was a compound fracture, treatment
of which required surgical intervention. The medical
expenses can hence be increased to Rs.20,000/-. For pain
and suffering, considering the continued partial disability it
can be increased to Rs.50,000/-. On the above reasoning,
the following amounts are awarded: -
| Sr. No. | Heads of Claim | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Compensation for permanent<br>disability.<br>Rs.6,000 x 12 x 140% x 16 x 35% | Rs.5,64,480/- |
| 2. | Future treatment. | Rs.25,000/- |
| 3. | Special diet for six months. | Rs.12,000/- |
| 4. | Loss of income for six months.<br>Rs.6,000 x 6 | Rs.36,000/- |
| 5. | Medical expenses | Rs.20,000/- |
| 6. | Pain and suffering. | Rs.50,000/- |
| 7. | Attendant expenses.<br>Rs.2,000 x 6 | Rs.12,000/- |
| Total amount | Rs.7,19,480/- |
9. The above-mentioned amounts shall be paid, after
deducting the amount which has already been paid with
interest as directed by the Tribunal, running from the date
of filing the claim petition, within a period of two months.
Page 5 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022
10. The appellant shall provide his account details to
which the money shall be deposited online by the insurance
company, within the above stipulated period.
11. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.
12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
….……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 14, 2025.
Page 6 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) No.20068 of 2022