Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 641
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2025)
(@Diary No. 20941 OF 2023)
KANUBHAI GOKALBHAI BARIYA …APPELLANT
VERSUS
JAYDIPSINH GOPALSINH
PAREKHIYA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant while travelling pillion in a bike met
with an accident when a bus rammed into the bike, killing
the driver of the bike and seriously injuring the
appellant. The right leg of the appellant was amputated,
below the knee and the right hand was also deformed
from the injuries sustained. The appellant before the
Tribunal sought a total compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.05.07
19:32:06 IST
Reason:
asserting a salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month as a
Page 1 of 6
CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023
watchman, which employment he was not able to
continue after the accident, due to the amputation.
3. The Tribunal found contributory negligence on the
bike driver which was apportioned @ 20% while the bus
driver was found to be more negligent @ 80%. The
Tribunal found that the income of the injured as per the
documents produced clearly indicated Rs.9,918/- which
was adopted for the purpose of deciding the loss of
income which also was of a permanent nature due to the
permanent physical disability suffered. The Tribunal
1
relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , to find 55%
functional disability, for payment of Rs. 50,000/- and the
income loss for 2 months was assessed at Rs. 20,000/. The
medical bills coming to a total of Rs. 5,17,850/- was
allowed with an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- for
special diet. The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal came to Rs.16,34,650/- with interest @ 9% per
annum. The Tribunal directed the insurer of the bike and
1
(2011) 1 SCC 343
Page 2 of 6
CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023
bus to compensate the petitioner respectively in a ratio
of 20:80.
4. The High Court in the appeal granted 40% increase
2
in the income as has been held in Pranay Sethi . Actual
loss of income was calculated for 6 months with the future
prospects included. According to us, that may not be
correct since 40% increase is to take in the future
prospects of the injured and as on the date of accident
when the income is proved, the loss of income should be
based on the income proved before the Tribunal. We are
conscious of the fact that the Insurance Company is not
before us but since just compensation is to be paid, we
reduce the same to Rs. 60,000/- for 6 months.
5. As far as the loss of future income is concerned, the
Tribunal and the High Court adopted 55% as the
disability. The learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant would contend that he was working as a
watchman and considering the amputation, his disability
2
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 3 of 6
CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023
would be 100%. The appellant’s counsel would also seek
for increase in the other heads including that for pain and
suffering.
1
6. Raj Kumar found that the disability assessed for
determining compensation should be the functional
disability. In the present case the physical disability of
the appellant was proved by the evidence of a doctor
who examined him and assessed his physical disability.
The certificate proved by the doctor clearly indicated
80% disability with respect to his amputated leg and 10%
disability insofar as the deformed right hand. The doctor
had clearly deposed that the stump of the right leg was
also deformed and there was no possibility of using an
artificial limb. In such circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the disability of the appellant would be 80%
only considering the fact that the appellant could still
move on crutches. The appellant had been in hospital for
one and a half months and due to the amputation, would
have definitely suffered bed rest for some time in the
Page 4 of 6
CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023
context of which the High Court has granted 6 months
loss of income though the loss of income has been
reduced by us. We are of the opinion that the pain and
suffering of the appellant has to be increased along with
an increase for special diet and attendant charges. The
compensation for pain and suffering would be Rs.
1,00,000/- and the attendant charges including special
diet for the period when the appellant was hospitalized;
which the High Court determined as 6 months, would be
@ Rs. 15,000/- per month, thus totalling to Rs. 1,90,000/-.
Hence the total compensation is as computed below:
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2025)
(@Diary No. 20941 OF 2023)
KANUBHAI GOKALBHAI BARIYA …APPELLANT
VERSUS
JAYDIPSINH GOPALSINH
PAREKHIYA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant while travelling pillion in a bike met
with an accident when a bus rammed into the bike, killing
the driver of the bike and seriously injuring the
appellant. The right leg of the appellant was amputated,
below the knee and the right hand was also deformed
from the injuries sustained. The appellant before the
Tribunal sought a total compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.05.07
19:32:06 IST
Reason:
asserting a salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month as a
Page 1 of 6
CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023
watchman, which employment he was not able to
continue after the accident, due to the amputation.
3. The Tribunal found contributory negligence on the
bike driver which was apportioned @ 20% while the bus
driver was found to be more negligent @ 80%. The
Tribunal found that the income of the injured as per the
documents produced clearly indicated Rs.9,918/- which
was adopted for the purpose of deciding the loss of
income which also was of a permanent nature due to the
permanent physical disability suffered. The Tribunal
1
relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , to find 55%
functional disability, for payment of Rs. 50,000/- and the
income loss for 2 months was assessed at Rs. 20,000/. The
medical bills coming to a total of Rs. 5,17,850/- was
allowed with an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- for
special diet. The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal came to Rs.16,34,650/- with interest @ 9% per
annum. The Tribunal directed the insurer of the bike and
1
(2011) 1 SCC 343
Page 2 of 6
CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023
bus to compensate the petitioner respectively in a ratio
of 20:80.
4. The High Court in the appeal granted 40% increase
2
in the income as has been held in Pranay Sethi . Actual
loss of income was calculated for 6 months with the future
prospects included. According to us, that may not be
correct since 40% increase is to take in the future
prospects of the injured and as on the date of accident
when the income is proved, the loss of income should be
based on the income proved before the Tribunal. We are
conscious of the fact that the Insurance Company is not
before us but since just compensation is to be paid, we
reduce the same to Rs. 60,000/- for 6 months.
5. As far as the loss of future income is concerned, the
Tribunal and the High Court adopted 55% as the
disability. The learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant would contend that he was working as a
watchman and considering the amputation, his disability
2
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 3 of 6
CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023
would be 100%. The appellant’s counsel would also seek
for increase in the other heads including that for pain and
suffering.
1
6. Raj Kumar found that the disability assessed for
determining compensation should be the functional
disability. In the present case the physical disability of
the appellant was proved by the evidence of a doctor
who examined him and assessed his physical disability.
The certificate proved by the doctor clearly indicated
80% disability with respect to his amputated leg and 10%
disability insofar as the deformed right hand. The doctor
had clearly deposed that the stump of the right leg was
also deformed and there was no possibility of using an
artificial limb. In such circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the disability of the appellant would be 80%
only considering the fact that the appellant could still
move on crutches. The appellant had been in hospital for
one and a half months and due to the amputation, would
have definitely suffered bed rest for some time in the
Page 4 of 6
CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023
context of which the High Court has granted 6 months
loss of income though the loss of income has been
reduced by us. We are of the opinion that the pain and
suffering of the appellant has to be increased along with
an increase for special diet and attendant charges. The
compensation for pain and suffering would be Rs.
1,00,000/- and the attendant charges including special
diet for the period when the appellant was hospitalized;
which the High Court determined as 6 months, would be
@ Rs. 15,000/- per month, thus totalling to Rs. 1,90,000/-.
Hence the total compensation is as computed below:
| S. No. | Heads of claim | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Loss of income<br>Rs. 9,818/- x 140% x 12 x 16<br>x 80%. | Rs. 21,11,262.72/- |
| 2. | Attendant charges and<br>special diet for 6 months @<br>Rs. 15,000/-. | Rs. 90,000/- |
| 3. | Medical Bills. | Rs. 5,17,850/- |
| 4. | Pain and suffering. | Rs. 1,00,000/- |
| 5. | Loss of income due to bed-<br>rest for 6 months. | Rs. 60,000 |
| Total compensation | Rs. 28,79,112.72/- |
Page 5 of 6
CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023
7. The above amount shall be apportioned in the ratio
of 20:80 as against the insurer of the bike and the bus. The
awarded amounts shall be paid within a period of two
months from today with interest @ 9% per annum as
ordered by the Tribunal and whatever amounts have
already been paid shall be deducted. The appellant shall
provide the bank account details to the Insurance
Companies who shall transfer the amount online within
the period specified hereinabove.
8. The Appeal stands allowed with the above
directions.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
……………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 07, 2025.
Page 6 of 6
CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023