Reshma vs. Dajiba Krishna Lad

2025 INSC 1320
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14729 of 2025)
RESHMA … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DAJIBA KRISHNA LAD &
ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R

Leave granted.
2. The claimant-appellant before us lays challenge to the
judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at
Signature Not Verified
Dharwad dated 24.09.2024 which, in turn, was preferred against
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Date: 2025.11.15
12:24:37 IST
Reason:
C.A.No..@SLP(C)No. 14729 of 2025 Page 1 of 9

the award dated 04.12.2017 passed by the XI Addl. District &
Sessions Judge & Addl. MACT, Belagavi in MVC
No.1320/2016.
3. Certain facts are not in dispute viz., (a) the claimant-
appellant namely Reshma, having sustained injuries in a motor
vehicle accident, subject matter of the present lis ; (b) the
vehicle stood insured by the insurer namely New India
Assurance Company Limited; (c) claimant-appellant’s
entitlement for compensation; and (d) cause of accident being
rash and negligent acts of driving the vehicle on the part of the
respondent no.1.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have
ably assisted the Court in the present matter.
5. With the aforesaid undisputed facts, we proceed to decide
the matter.
6. The claimant-appellant at the time of the accident was 24
years of age. The Tribunal, vide order dated 04.12.2017, held
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.MH-09/BB-
1565. Taking the income of the claimant-appellant to be at
Rs.10,000/-, awarded compensation amounting to
Rs.30,24,800/- with interest @9% per annum to the claimant-
appellant herein.
C.A.No..@SLP(C)No. 14729 of 2025 Page 2 of 9

7. Thereafter, the High Court, while allowing the claimant-
appellant’s appeal for enhancement, reassessed her income to be
Rs.9,000/-, and increased the amount awarded towards the head
of future prospects to the tune of 40%. Therefore, the amount of
compensation was enhanced by Rs.5,61,600/- along with
interest @6% from the date of filing of the petition. In effect,
the total compensation stood increased from Rs.30,24,800/- to
Rs.35,86,400/-. Yet dissatisfied, the claimant appellant has
carried the matter in an appeal before us.
8 . The instant case is one of those where, solely for the
reason of negligence exhibited by one party, the other suffers
grave, life-altering consequences. The accident that rendered the
claimant-appellant severely disabled took place in the broad
daylight on the unfortunate morning of 23.02.2015 at 11:45
AM. The Tribunal, in paras 15 -19 of its award, discussed the
nature of injuries suffered, both physical and mental, and
correctly in our view, assessed the disability of the claimant-
appellant to be 100%.
9 . The challenge to the amount of compensation awarded by
the High Court is on the grounds that the income of the
claimant-appellant has been reduced by Rs.1,000/-; no
compensation was awarded under the head of marriage
prospects; disfigurement; grossly insufficient compensation has
been awarded under the heads of attendant charges; and future
C.A.No..@SLP(C)No. 14729 of 2025 Page 3 of 9

medical expenses. Interest has been sought at the enhanced rate
of 12% per annum as per Jiju Kuruvilla & others vs.
1
Kunjujamma Mohan & others .
10 . We find force in the case set up by the claimant-appellant.
The object of just compensation, as has been discussed in
numerous judgments, is to restore, as far as possible, the
claimant-appellant to a position where the accident would not
have taken place and they would not be negatively affected in
life. Cases such as the present one highlight the limits of just
compensation, for it cannot be disputed that no amount of
money will bring the claimant-appellant back to the time where
she would be able to live a life on her own terms, being duly
entitled to dream of and make efforts for a glorious future.
11. We are of the considered view that the Tribunal, as also
the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, have awarded appropriate and just compensation.
11.1. The High Court assessed the income of the
claimant-appellant @Rs.9,000/- per month in the
absence of any oral or documentary evidence
11.2. A 24-year-old female’s entire life has been
turned upside down because of the disaster that has
befallen on the claimant-appellant and her family. All
1 (2013) 9 SCC 166
C.A.No..@SLP(C)No. 14729 of 2025 Page 4 of 9

wants and desires have forever been crushed and
extinguished; this may very well include prospects to
lead a happy marital life. Although no particular
calculation can be prescribed for such a loss, given its
non-pecuniary nature, we follow this Court’s
2
pronouncement in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand , wherein
a 12-year-old girl had suffered grievous injuries
leading to brain damage and the Courts while
considering the head of marriage prospects, awarded
a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The accident in that case took
place in 2007 whereas in the present case, it was in
the year 2015. Under this head, therefore,
compensation is awarded to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-.
11.3. Given the nature of the injuries suffered by
the claimant-appellant (85% mental disability and
45% physical disability to lower left limb ) we are of
the opinion that the compensation awarded by the
Courts below, under the head of attendant charges, is
severely inadequate. In Kajal (supra), attendant
charges were assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month, which
were awarded as per the multiplier applicable. In
3
Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon ,
considering severe injuries like “ cerebral
2 (2020) 4 SCC 413
3 (2022) 8 SCC 489
C.A.No..@SLP(C)No. 14729 of 2025 Page 5 of 9

oedema/brain oedema, fracture right part of temporal
bone, spinal cord, lower limbs, due to which he was
having loss of speech, convulsions, injuries on face.
The lower limb of the claimant was completely
paralysed resulting into 100% disability; his hope to
live blissful life was lost due to those injuries”, this
Court deemed it appropriate to grant attendant
charges for two attendants instead of one. The present
case is also a fit one to award the attendant charges
for two attendants. As such the attendant charges for
24 hours amounting to Rs.10,000/- per month x 2 =
Rs.20,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs.43,20,000/-
11.4. Under pain and suffering, the Courts below
awarded Rs.2,00,000/-. We may only ask, what else
does a claimant have to suffer to be awarded a fair
amount under this head? Taking a cumulative view of
the circumstances, as also the compensation as
enhanced by this Court in the above terms, we award
a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.
12. As a result of the discussion above, the compensation
payable to the claimant-appellant in accordance with law is as
follows:
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
C.A.No..@SLP(C)No. 14729 of 2025 Page 6 of 9

C.A.No..@SLP(C)No. 14729 of 2025 Page 7 of 9

Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:

13. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The
impugned Award dated 04.12.2017 passed in MVC
No.1320/2016 by the XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge &
Addl. MACT, Belagavi, as modified in terms of the impugned
order dated 24.09.2024 in Miscellaneous First Appeal
No.102764 of 2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, stands modified accordingly. Interest is to be
paid on such terms as it is awarded by the High Court from the
date of filing of the original claim petition.
14. The amount be directly remitted to the bank account of
the claimant-appellant. The particulars of the bank account are
to be immediately supplied by the learned counsel for the
claimant-appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent(s).
th
The amount be remitted positively before 30 November, 2025.
C.A.No..@SLP(C)No. 14729 of 2025 Page 8 of 9

Pending application(s) if any shall stand disposed of.
…..…………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
…….…………………. ……………………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi
October 14, 2025
C.A.No..@SLP(C)No. 14729 of 2025 Page 9 of 9