S. Mohammed Hakkim vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 905

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S)._______________ OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 28062-63 OF 2023]

S. MOHAMMED HAKKIM …APPELLANT(S)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.


1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before this Court challenging the impugned order
dated 11.11.2022, whereby the Madras High Court reduced the
compensation awarded to the appellant in a motor accident case from
Rs. 73,29,653/-to Rs.58,53,447/-.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) On 07.01.2017, when the appellant was riding on a motorcycle
along with his friend on the pillion, respondent no.2 suddenly
applied the brakes of his car, which was ahead of the appellant’s
motorcycle, and the appellant dashed his motorcycle into the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.07.29
17:44:44 IST
Reason:
rear side of the car and fell on the right side of the road. The bus
coming from behind drove over the appellant, which finally led to
1




the accident resulting in the amputation of appellant’s left leg
during treatment. The car and the bus were insured by
respondent no.3 and respondent no.1, respectively.
(b) The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) seeking
compensation of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- in which Tribunal calculated
a compensation of Rs.91,62,066/-. However, since it was held
that there was 20% contributory negligence on the part of the
appellant, Rs.73,29,653/- were made payable to the appellant by
respondent no.1 (insurer of bus). The car insurer was exonerated
from all liabilities.
(c) Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, both the respondent no.1
(insurer of bus) and the appellant approached the High Court.
Vide impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the appeal
filed by respondent no.1 by reducing the attendant’s charges
from Rs.18 lacs to Rs.5 lacs and by fixing liability of car driver,
bus driver and the appellant as 40%, 30% and 30% respectively.
The cross-objection filed by appellant was also partly allowed by
granting him Rs. 5 lacs under the head of future medical
expenses. Consequently, the High Court reduced the payable
compensation from Rs. 73,29,653/- to Rs. 58,53,447/- along
with interest. Now, the appellant is before us.
2





4. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record.
5. First on the question of contributory negligence of the appellant and
negligence on the part of the drivers of the other two vehicles involved
in the accident. The Tribunal, as well as the High Court, have
affirmed that the accident occurred due to the sudden stoppage of
the car. However, it was the view of the Tribunal that if the bus had
not been involved in the accident, the appellant would have suffered
normal injuries, and it was mainly the negligence of the bus driver
that led to the amputation of the appellant’s leg. The Tribunal also
1
relied on Rule 23 of the Road Regulation Rules 1989 and put
contributory negligence of 20% on the appellant for not maintaining
a sufficient distance from the car. The Tribunal had exonerated the
car driver and determined the negligence of the appellant and the bus
driver in the ratio of 20:80. In appeal, the High Court has rightly held
that since the genesis of the accident was the sudden braking of the
car, the car driver should also be made liable. The High Court held
the car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of 40%
and 30% respectively; while the appellant was made liable for 30%
contributory negligence.

1
Distance from vehicles in front: The Driver of a Motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient
distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.
3





6. The car insurer has taken the stand that the appellant had hit the
moving car from behind and thus, car driver is not liable. On the
other hand, the car driver has admitted in his evidence that he had
suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had a
vomiting sensation. In our view, the concurrent finding that the
appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient
distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle
without a valid license is correct. But at the same time, it cannot be
ignored that the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes
applied by the car driver. The explanation given by the car driver for
suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway is not a
reasonable explanation from any angle. On a highway, high speed of
vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has
a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving
behind on the road. In the present case, there is nothing on record
to suggest that the car driver had taken any such precaution. Both
Tribunal as well as the High Court have noted that the bus driver
was also negligent. After considering all these aspects, we are of the
view that the appellant is liable for contributory negligence but only
to the extent of 20% whereas the car driver and bus driver are liable
for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30% respectively.
4





7. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the age of
the appellant at the time of the accident was 20 years, and he was
studying in the 3rd year of Engineering College, Coimbatore. It is also
not disputed that the appellant had lost his left leg due to the
accident and thus, suffers from a 100% functional disability. While
determining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had taken
Rs. 15,000/- as the appellant’s monthly notional income and the
same was affirmed by the High Court. However, the learned counsel
of the appellant would contend that the appellant’s notional income
ought to have been taken as Rs.25,000/- per month.
8. In the present case, at the time of the accident, the appellant was a
3rd year engineering student who could have had a bright future.
While dealing with a case of an accident in which an engineering
student had lost one leg, this Court in Navjot Singh v. Harpreet
Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1562 had noted that:
“ 12. Admittedly, the appellant was 21 years of age at the time of
the accident and he was pursuing a Degree course in Food
Technology from Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and
Technology. Though the Tribunal did not believe the claim made by
the appellant that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month even as
a student by taking tuitions, and though the High Court also did
not go by the said claim, the High Court arrived at the notional
income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/- per month, on the ground
that the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker was
Rs. 5,000/- per month.
13. But we do not think that the notional income of a student
undergoing a Degree course in Engineering from a premier institute
should be taken to be equivalent to the minimum wages admissible
to an unskilled worker. Students recruited through campus
interviews are atleast offered a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month.
5




Even if we do not go on the said basis, the High Court could have
fixed the notional income atleast at Rs. 10,000/- per month.
14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and by
exercising our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
we take the notional monthly income of the appellant as Rs.
10,000/- per month.”


9. In the above case, this Court was dealing with a case of an accident
that occurred in the year 2013. Although considering the facts of that
case, this Court had taken the income of the claimant therein as Rs.
10,000/- per month, it was noted that students, like the appellant in
the present case, would be at least earning the minimum of Rs.
20,000/- per month. Thus, in our opinion, it would be in the interest
of justice if the notional income of the appellant were taken as Rs.
20,000/-. According to the guidelines in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009)
6 SCC 121 as upheld in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the multiplier would be taken as 18, and
future prospects would be 40%. Therefore, the loss of income would
be as follows:

10. The High Court has rightly granted Rs.5,00,000/- for the future
medical expenses but erred in reducing the attendant charges from
6




Rs. 18 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs. In the present case, by taking charges of an
attendant as Rs.6,000/- per month for 25 years, the Tribunal
calculated the attendant charges as Rs. 18 lacs. While reducing it to
Rs.5 lacs, the High Court has not given any cogent reasons and
merely noted that fixing Rs.18 lacs as attendant charges is exorbitant
and unreasonable. We are unable to understand how the attendant
charges of Rs.18 lacs fixed by the Tribunal are unreasonable. The
appellant has lost his entire left leg, which was amputated from waist
downwards, which means that he would require assistance
throughout his life to perform the basic daily routine. Thus, we hold
that the attendant charges as fixed by the Tribunal were justified.
11. There is one more aspect which has attracted our attention. Under
the head of loss of marital prospects, Tribunal had granted Rs. 2.5
lacs to the appellant and the same has been affirmed by the High
Court. However, in our view, it is not sufficient, and in the interest of
justice, it shall be increased to Rs. 5 lacs. As far as the High Court’s
decision to grant Rs. 5 lacs for the future medical expenses is
concerned, we do not think it requires any interference. For all other
heads, we agree with the concurrent findings and thus, the
determination of the compensation would be as follows:

7

12. As stated above, the appellant is liable for the contributory negligence
to the extent of 20% and thus, compensation payable to the appellant
is Rs. 91,39,253/- (Rs.1,14,24,066 – 20% i.e. Rs.22,84,813) along
with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition. Since both the offending vehicles (car as well as
the bus) were insured at the time of the accident, the liability for the
negligence of the car driver and bus driver shall be borne by them
i.e., respondent no.3 to the extent of 50% and respondent no.1 to the
extent of 30%, respectively. The amount of compensation shall be
paid to the appellant within four weeks from the date of this order.



8





13. We dispose of these appeals in the above terms.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.



………………….……………J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]





1.
….....………………………….J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]



NEW DELHI;
JULY 29, 2025.
9