Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 642
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.16748 of 2024)
SUNIL KUMAR KHUSHWAHA
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KATRAGADDA SATYANARAYANA & ANR.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Two pedestrians were struck by a truck which was
driven rashly and negligently, leading to one of them, the
appellant/claimant herein, suffering grievous injuries
leading to amputation of his right leg from knee. The injured
was first taken to the local hospital, then shifted to the
specialized hospital and later to Delhi from Ranchi for better
treatment where the amputation was carried out. The
Signature Not Verified
injured was a fruit seller who had already been filing
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.05.07
19:32:05 IST
Reason:
Income Tax Returns, Exhibit-5 which indicated his income to
Page 1 of 5
CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024
the tune of Rs.1,56,996/-. The same was adopted by the
Tribunal, however no amounts were granted for loss of
income due to the permanent disability suffered. The
Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.7,09,273/-, the major
portion of which was towards medical bills coming to
Rs.5,00,949/-. The aggregate was with respect to income
during treatment for one and half months, towards
conveyance (air and rail) and the pain and suffering which
were respectively at Rs.19,624/-, Rs.13,700/- and
Rs.1,75,000/-.
3. The High Court relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar
1
and Anr. which emphasized the need to assess the
functional disability in granting compensation based on the
physical disability certificate. In the present case, a doctor
was examined who produced Exhibit4/1, a disability
certificate issued on the examination of the injured by a
Medical Board. The certificate assessed the injured to have
50% permanent disability due to amputation of his right leg.
4. Mr.Karan Deep Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant/injured submitted that since the appellant was a
1
(2011) 1 SCC 343
Page 2 of 5
CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024
fruit seller, he could no longer carry out such sales and
hence there is a 100% functional disability in so far as the
chosen vocation. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
for the respondent-Insurance Company sought to uphold the
order of the High Court.
5. We are not satisfied that a functional disability of 100%
can be assessed only because he cannot carry on the
vocation which he was carrying on earlier. It is not as if the
appellant was vending fruit on his foot, especially when it is
seen that he was filing an Income Tax Return. It is also
evident from the deposition of CW-2 that the injured was
having a shop in Bazar Samiti. Definitely, the disability
would affect his income, and he would probably have to
engage an employee in his shop. In Raj Kumar (supra), a
self-employed person engaged in a business, who had to
amputate his left leg, pursuant to a motor vehicle accident,
was assessed with a functional disability of 60% by the
Tribunal, which was found to be proper. Hence, in the
present case, functional disability can be assessed at 60%.
6. In addition, because the injured had to move from the
local hospital to the specialized hospital and then to the
Page 3 of 5
CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024
higher medical center at Delhi, the conveyance charges can
be fixed at Rs.50,000/-. For pain and suffering, considering
amputation of his left leg, Rs.2 lakhs can be awarded. The
High Court has found a reasonable period of bed rest at 6
months and for special diet and attendant charges there
shall be an amount awarded of Rs. 15,000/- per month. So
far as the income during treatment it must be preserved as
awarded by the Tribunal. The total compensation would
stand modified as herein: -
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.16748 of 2024)
SUNIL KUMAR KHUSHWAHA
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KATRAGADDA SATYANARAYANA & ANR.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Two pedestrians were struck by a truck which was
driven rashly and negligently, leading to one of them, the
appellant/claimant herein, suffering grievous injuries
leading to amputation of his right leg from knee. The injured
was first taken to the local hospital, then shifted to the
specialized hospital and later to Delhi from Ranchi for better
treatment where the amputation was carried out. The
Signature Not Verified
injured was a fruit seller who had already been filing
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.05.07
19:32:05 IST
Reason:
Income Tax Returns, Exhibit-5 which indicated his income to
Page 1 of 5
CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024
the tune of Rs.1,56,996/-. The same was adopted by the
Tribunal, however no amounts were granted for loss of
income due to the permanent disability suffered. The
Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.7,09,273/-, the major
portion of which was towards medical bills coming to
Rs.5,00,949/-. The aggregate was with respect to income
during treatment for one and half months, towards
conveyance (air and rail) and the pain and suffering which
were respectively at Rs.19,624/-, Rs.13,700/- and
Rs.1,75,000/-.
3. The High Court relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar
1
and Anr. which emphasized the need to assess the
functional disability in granting compensation based on the
physical disability certificate. In the present case, a doctor
was examined who produced Exhibit4/1, a disability
certificate issued on the examination of the injured by a
Medical Board. The certificate assessed the injured to have
50% permanent disability due to amputation of his right leg.
4. Mr.Karan Deep Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant/injured submitted that since the appellant was a
1
(2011) 1 SCC 343
Page 2 of 5
CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024
fruit seller, he could no longer carry out such sales and
hence there is a 100% functional disability in so far as the
chosen vocation. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
for the respondent-Insurance Company sought to uphold the
order of the High Court.
5. We are not satisfied that a functional disability of 100%
can be assessed only because he cannot carry on the
vocation which he was carrying on earlier. It is not as if the
appellant was vending fruit on his foot, especially when it is
seen that he was filing an Income Tax Return. It is also
evident from the deposition of CW-2 that the injured was
having a shop in Bazar Samiti. Definitely, the disability
would affect his income, and he would probably have to
engage an employee in his shop. In Raj Kumar (supra), a
self-employed person engaged in a business, who had to
amputate his left leg, pursuant to a motor vehicle accident,
was assessed with a functional disability of 60% by the
Tribunal, which was found to be proper. Hence, in the
present case, functional disability can be assessed at 60%.
6. In addition, because the injured had to move from the
local hospital to the specialized hospital and then to the
Page 3 of 5
CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024
higher medical center at Delhi, the conveyance charges can
be fixed at Rs.50,000/-. For pain and suffering, considering
amputation of his left leg, Rs.2 lakhs can be awarded. The
High Court has found a reasonable period of bed rest at 6
months and for special diet and attendant charges there
shall be an amount awarded of Rs. 15,000/- per month. So
far as the income during treatment it must be preserved as
awarded by the Tribunal. The total compensation would
stand modified as herein: -
| Sr. No. | Heads of Claim | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Loss of income.<br>Rs.1,56,996 x 140% x 18 x 60% | Rs.23,73,780/- |
| 2. | Medical expenses. | Rs.5,00,949/- |
| 3. | Conveyance charges. | Rs.50,000/- |
| 4. | Pain and suffering. | Rs.2,00,000/- |
| 5. | Income loss for 1& ½ months | Rs. 19,624/- |
| 6. | Special diet and attendant<br>charges for six months.<br>Rs.15,000 x 6 | Rs.90,000/- |
| Total amount | Rs.32,34,353/- |
7. The said amount shall be paid, deducting whatever
amount has been paid as of now, with interest as directed by
Page 4 of 5
CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024
the Tribunal, running from the date of filing of the claim
petition, within a period of two months.
8. The appellant shall provide the account details to
which account the money shall be deposited online by the
insurance company, within the above stipulated period.
9. The Appeal stands allowed with the above
modification.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 07, 2025.
Page 5 of 5
CA @SLP (C) No. 16748 of 2024