2026 INSC 656 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8714 OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.19227 of 2021)

SHANKAR DUTT …APPELLANT

VERSUS

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.

LTD. AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

2.The present appeal, which is preferred by the original

claimant, is directed against the judgment and order dated

19.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at

Nainital

1

in Appeal from Order No. 151 of 2012. Thereby,

the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to

Rs.11,51,423/- to be paid with interest at the rate of 6%

per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till

the date of realisation.

1 Hereinafter, “High Court”

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 1 of 33

2.1The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional

District Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal

2

in Motor Accident

Claim Case No.50 of 2005 awarded Rs.4,77,823/- with 4%

p.a. interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the

date of realisation. In the appeal, the High Court enhanced

the amount of compensation to Rs.11,51,423/- with

interest at 6% per annum. The appellant seeks further

enhancement in the compensation amount, therefore, he

has moved this Court by way of the present appeal.

Basic Facts

3.A vehicular accident took place on 09.11.2004. The

appellant, 38 years old, engaged in the occupation of a

carpenter, suffered serious injuries when, at around 8:00

pm on the said date, he was travelling on his motorcycle

bearing registration No. UA-12-5725 from Kotdwar to

Motadhak, a Jeep car bearing No. UP-06-0915, stated to

have been driven by its owner-driver rashly and negligently,

came from Motadhak, entered the wrong side of the road

by proceeding to its right side, and hit the motorcycle. The

2 Hereinafter, “Claims Tribunal”

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 2 of 33

appellant sustained grievous injuries, especially on his

right leg which was badly injured.

3.1The appellant came to be admitted to the Government

Hospital, Kotdwar. On the next day that is 10.11.2004, he

was shifted for further treatment to Himalayan Hospital,

Jolly Grant, Dehradun, upon medical advice. In order to

save the life of the appellant, it was considered necessary

to amputate his right leg, which was amputated from above

the knee. The appellant was treated at the said Dehradun

Hospital since the date of his admission on 10.11.2004 till

22.12.2004, for about 43 days. As per the case of the

appellant, on account of the amputation of his right leg, he

became completely disabled from doing work as a carpenter

and his movement was seriously restricted.

3.1.1 The appellant filed the claim petition before the

Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of

Rs.18,50,000/-. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the

Insurance Companies, which had insured the offending

Jeep and the motorcycle respectively, and respondent No.3

is the driver-cum-owner of the offending Jeep. The

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 3 of 33

respondents filed written statements and contested the

petition. The Claims Tribunal passed the award on

02.03.2012, determining total compensation under various

heads totalling Rs.4,77,823/- granting interest at 4%

interest per annum thereon.

Compensation by the High Court

3.2The judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal was

appealed against. The High Court, while allowing the

claimant’s appeal, enhanced the amount of compensation

to Rs. 11,51,423/- awarding interest at 6% p.a. on the said

amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till

realisation. In arriving at the enhanced compensation, the

High Court took the monthly income at Rs. 5,000/-

increasing the same from Rs. 3,000/- per month as

adopted by the Claims Tribunal. However, the High Court

reduced the multiplier from 17 to 15. The extent of

permanent disability which was considered to be 70% by

the Claims Tribunal was maintained. The High Court

enhanced the amount towards pain, suffering and loss of

amenities and further granted additional amounts of Rs.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 4 of 33

25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards future nourishment

and future medical expenses respectively.

3.2.1 The following tabular chart contains the

comparative details of the compensation awarded under

different heads by the Claims Tribunal and enhanced by

the High Court,

Compensation Heads Amount awarded

by the Claims

Tribunal

Amount awarded

by the High Court

Monthly Income Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 5,000/-

Yearly Income (x 12) Rs. 36,000/- Rs. 60,000/-

Future Prospects - 60,000 + 24,000

(40%) = Rs. 84,000

Multiplier 36,000 x 17 = Rs.

6,12,000/-

84,000 x 15 =

Rs. 12,60,000

Permanent Disability

(70%)

70% of Rs. 6,12,000

= Rs. 4,28,400/-

70% of Rs.

12,60,000 =

Rs. 8,82,000/-

Loss of future Income Rs. 4,28,400/- Rs. 8,82,000

Pain and suffering

and Loss of Amenities

Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-

Future Nourishment - Rs. 25,000/-

Medical Expenses Rs. 44,423/- Rs. 44,423/-

Future medical

expenses

- Rs. 1,00,000/-

Interest 4 % p.a. 6 % p.a.

TOTAL Rs.4,77,823/- Rs.11,51,423/-

Rival Submissions

4.On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel Mr.

Ashwani Garg submitted that in respect of the following

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 5 of 33

heads, the High Court has either failed to award any

amount or that the amount awarded is on lower side.

(i)Notional income was assessed by the High Court at

Rs.5,000/- per month which is a low figure having

regard to decisions of this Court in Mohd. Sabeer

alias Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, in

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation

3

, in

Jitendra vs. Sadiya and Others

4

and in Hitesh

Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari

and Another

5

. The facts in those cases were

similar, therefore, income of the appellant should

be notionally taken at least at Rs.8,000/- per

month.

(ii)The High Court failed to award any amount

towards expenses for purchase of artificial limb

and its maintenance.

(iii)Also, under the head ‘transportation charges’, no

amount is awarded.

3 (2023) 20 SCC 774

4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 261

5 Civil Appeal No.10278 of 2025 decided on 08.08.2025

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 6 of 33

(iv)Attendant charges have also not been awarded by

the High Court which should have been awarded at

Rs.2,00,000/- in lump sum.

(v)The future prospects, that is, loss of future earning

is not taken into account.

(vi)In respect of loss of income during treatment also,

no amount is awarded.

(vii)The High Court has adopted multiplier of 15 which

ought to have been 16.

(viii)The permanent disability is taken at 70%. Looking

to the fact that the appellant was a carpenter and

his right leg below the knee was amputated, the

functional disability needed to be taken at 100%.

The loss of income for future earnings due to

disability will have to be accounted for accordingly.

(ix)Relying on the various decisions and suggesting in

the factual context of the present case, the amount

towards pains, sufferings as well as loss of

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 7 of 33

amenities needed to be given to the tune of

Rs.5,00,000/-.

(x)While awarding medical expenses, the High Court

has overlooked that over and above the actual

medical expenses, there were out of pocket

expenses. Therefore, the amount on this count has

to be increased.

4.1On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Abhishek

Gola and learned counsel Mr. K.K. Bhat for respondent

Nos.1 and 2 respectively highlighted the stand of the

Insurance Companies. None appeared for respondent No.3,

though served.

4.1.1 On behalf of respondent No.1-United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. with which the offending Jeep car was

insured, it was submitted through the counter affidavit

filed before this Court that the High Court rightly

considered the figure of Rs.5,000/- as income of the

appellant inasmuch as the said figure was arrived at on the

basis of minimum wages in the State of Uttarakhand as

prevalent in December 2005. In support of this

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 8 of 33

submission, the decision in Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian

and Others

6

was pressed into service.

4.1.2 It was also sought to be submitted that the

functional disability at 70% was quite justified since it

would be possible for the appellant to perform his

carpentry work and that he would not be said to have

become completely handicap from working.

4.1.3 Respondent No.2-National Insurance Company

Limited filed its counter affidavit raising various pleas and

contested the appeal, emphasizing that the accident had

been caused due to negligence of the Jeep car driver and

that the said findings was not challenged any further.

5.Proceeding to examine the plea of the appellant for

enhancement in compensation and what could be the just

and fair compensation to be awarded to the appellant in

the facts of the case, the parameters and the permissible

heads of compensation, may be looked at, at the outset.

5.1The principles governing the assessment of

compensation payable to road accident victim who suffers

6 2019 ACJ 3011

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 9 of 33

permanent or temporary disability may be recalled. In

Jagdish vs. Mohan and Others

7

this Court highlighted the

aspects which must weigh with the court in awarding the

compensation. It was observed in paragraph 8 of the

judgment that a victim who suffers a permanent or

temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled

to the award of proper compensation.

5.1.1 The award of compensation must cover among

others, the following aspects, stated the court, (i) Pain,

suffering and trauma resulting from the accident (ii) Loss of

income including future income (iii) The inability of the

victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities (iv)

Medical expenses including those that the victim may be

required to undertake in future and (v) Loss of expectation

of life.

5.1.2 In Laxman alias Laxman Mourya vs.

Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company

Limited and Another

8

, after considering several other

pronouncements, this Court observed that if the victim of

7 (2018) 4 SCC 571

8 (2011) 10 SCC 756

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 10 of 33

an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then

endeavour should be to award the adequate compensation,

not only for the physical injury and treatment but also for

the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss

of earnings and victim’s inability to lead a normal life and

enjoy amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the

disability caused due to the accident.

Carpentry A skilled work

5.2The appellant who got injured in the accident and had

to suffer amputation of his right leg below the knee was a

carpenter. A carpenter is an artisan. An artisan is one who

is engaged in production of article of commercial value, or

they are kind of industrial arts.

5.2.1 Though in a different context, this Court in

State of Orissa and Others vs. Adwait Charan Mohanty

and Others

9

explained the concept of the word “artisan”

from Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, (3rd Edn.) Vol. 1,

p. 103, to define “artisan” as one who practices and

cultivates art, an artist, who occupies in any industrial art,

9 1995 Supp (1) SCC 470

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 11 of 33

a mechanic handicraftsman. It was observed that the

Black's Law Dictionary defines “artisan” as “one skilled in

some kind of trade, craft, or art requiring manual dexterity,

e.g., a carpenter, plumber, tailor, mechanic”.

5.2.2 The Court stated thus,

“The word ‘artisan’, therefore, has to be

understood in common parlance in a wider sense

as an art or an artist or one employed in any of

the industrial arts or produces an article of

commercial value or utility with manual dexterity,

either by manual labour or with the help of tools

or machine and brings into existence a product for

sale or service. An element of not only creativity

would be applied to bring into existence an article

or commercial goods with dexterity employing

manual or technical labour or with the aid of tools

etc. However, it is not exhaustive. Each case must

be considered on its own facts and attendant

circumstances to find whether the workman is an

artisan. However, if he is a Class IV government

servant, he too is entitled to superannuation on

attaining 60 years of age.”

(Para 10)

5.2.3 In Neeta and Others vs. Divisional Manager,

Maharashtra SRTC, Kolhapur

10

, this Court viewed that

carpentry is a skilled job. In Karamjit Singh vs.

Amandeep Singh and Another

11

, for the purpose of

calculating the notional income of a carpenter, this Court

10 (2015) 3 SCC 590

11 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4275

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 12 of 33

in terms stated that carpentry is a field work and that the

carpenter is a skilled worker,

“A carpenter is somebody who uses wood and

constructs objects for daily use or beauty or in

certain countries even housing. A normal person

who is not trained in the craft certainly cannot

undertake these activities with the level of

precision that is required. It would be unfair then,

to classify a carpenter as an unskilled worker…”

(Para 7)

5.2.4 The carpenter is thus a skilled worker, who

works to bring into existence various items of wood by his

expertise and dexterity. When the income of the injured

appellant carpenter is to be notionally assessed for the

purpose of compensation, the fact and the aspect that the

appellant was a skilled worker, cannot be overlooked, and

has to be accounted for.

Fair Notional Income

5.3The High Court, while increasing the figure of

monthly income of the injured appellant from Rs.3,000/- to

Rs.5,000/-, heavily relied on the decision of this Court

Chameli Devi (supra) in which also the injured was a

carpenter whose income was assessed to Rs.5,000/- per

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 13 of 33

month. The accident in that case had taken place in the

year 2001.

5.3.1 Jagdish (supra) also was the case of a carpenter,

where the accident had taken place on 24.11.2011. The

Claims Tribunal had considered the income of the

appellant Jagdish at Rs.4050/- per month which was

confirmed by the High Court. In that case, the injury had

resulted into the hands of the injured becoming non-

functional and the injured needed assistance even in eating

the food. This Court took the figure of income at Rs.6,000/-

per month.

5.3.2 The present is a case where the accident took

place in November 2004. The appellant claimed in this

evidence that he was earning Rs.8,000/- to 10,000/- per

month. This evidence has almost remained unrefuted. This

Court is of the view that the High Court erred in restricting

the figure of income at Rs.5,000/- per month. A skilled job

would always have potentiality to fetch and earn higher

income. Keeping in view Chameli Devi (supra) and

Jagdish (supra), taking guidance from said cases and

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 14 of 33

further by striking a balance in the context of the facts of

the present case, this Court considers it appropriate to

assess the income of the appellant at Rs.9,000/- per

month, when the appellant was a skilled worker for the

purpose of computing the compensation.

Adoption of Multiplier

5.4The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17. However,

the High Court applied the multiplier of 15 in view of the

law laid down in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and Anr.

12

. Para 42 of Sarla Verma (supra)

provides that:

“We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used

should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table

above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas?,

Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with ag

operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15

to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for

every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-

16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years,

M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50

years, then reduced by two units for every five

years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years. M-9 for 56

to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66

to 70 years.”

(Para 42)

12 (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 15 of 33

5.4.1 As the age of the appellant-claimant at the time

of accident was 38, multiplier of 15 was rightly applied by

the High Court. It has to be maintained.

Loss of Earning Capacity

5.5For the claimant who is rendered partial or completely

disabled and who has suffered permanent or partial

disability, the factor of loss of earning capacity becomes

pivotal in determining the compensation amount. An

injured in the vehicular accident stands incapacitated or

physically impaired to work for earning the livelihood. The

earning capacity gets adversely affected in presenti as well

as for the future. When the disability resulted out of the

injury is of a permanent nature, it would have an in futuro

effect. The injured would be left disabled to undertake any

effective activity for earning for the rest of the years of his

life, both for himself and his family.

5.5.1 In assessing the compensation for permanent

disability, the extent of loss of earning capacity of the

injured is a decisive consideration. It goes with the extent

of disability suffered. The quantum of compensation must

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 16 of 33

correspond to the loss of earning capacity. In other words,

the loss of earning capacity is an important yardstick and

it is an acid test which would guide the assessment of

compensation by the Claims Tribunal or the court

undertaking such exercise.

5.5.2 Furthermore, the socio-economic conditions of

the claimant and the concerning circumstances on that

count can also be taken into account for adjudging the loss

of earning capacity, in turn, for the purpose of arriving at

the total compensation. Thus, the loss of earning capacity

guided by the compelling socio-economic factors becomes

prime considerations.

5.5.3 In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another

13

,

this Court observed thus,

“Where the claimant suffers a permanent

disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of

compensation under the head of loss of future

earnings would depend upon the effect and impact

of such permanent disability on his earning

capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically

apply the percentage of permanent disability as

the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning

capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of

economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of

earning capacity, arising from a permanent

13 (2011) 1 SCC 343

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 17 of 33

disability will be different from the percentage of

permanent disability…” (Para 10)

5.5.4 It was further observed in paragraph 11 that what is

required to be assessed is the effect of the permanent

disability on the earning capacity of the injured and after

assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a

percentage of income, it has to be quantified in terms of

money, by arriving at future loss of earnings by applying

the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of

dependency.

Medical versus Functional Disability

5.6The Medical Certificate issued by the doctor stated

that the injury of the appellant which finally ended up with

the amputation of the lower half part of his right leg was

about 70%. The appellant-claimant asserted that because

of the amputation of the leg, his disability would result

100%.

5.6.1 A conceptual distinction has to be drawn

between the medically certified disability resulting out of

physical injury or impairment on one hand, and the long-

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 18 of 33

term repercussions on the injured, on his or her life and

activities on the other hand. The functional disability is

one which is suffered and felt by the injured in his day-to-

day life or in his avocation, occupation, business or

profession.

5.6.2 The medical opinion may have suggested that

physical impairment on account of the injury is to a

particular extent, however its functional effect may be

greater. In fact, it could be reasonable to state that the

functional incapacity resulting out of a particular bodily

injury, which may be impairment or amputation, would be

higher and greater than what may be medically perceived.

5.6.3 When it comes to assessing the compensation in

the context of the injury suffered, what matters is the

extent by which the functions of an injured person suffers,

and not what the doctor may have judged in terms of

medical standards. The functional aspect of the disability

arising out of injury has correlation with the age of the

injured, his occupation, engagement in work or avocation,

the adversarial effect on the earning capacity of the

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 19 of 33

injured, which would again depend upon the nature of

work or earning activity with which and in which the

injured is engaged and such other relevant considerations.

5.6.4 For instance, where an injured is a driver, his

partial amputation of the hand would render him cent

percent incapable of driving the vehicle as he would not be

able to effectively and safely handle the steering. The

extent of the functional disability would largely remain

dependent upon the nature of work and the kind of

earning activity in which the injured is engaged.

Cent Percent in Present Case

5.7In the recent decision in R. Halle vs. Reliance

General Insurance Company Limited

14

which was

decided on 18.03.2026, this Court observed inter alia that

the principles governing the assessment of disability

should be properly analyzed on the basis of the attended

facts and no abrupt conclusion about the functional

disability should be arrived at. It was observed that the

assessment of functional disability has a direct bearing on

14 (2026) SCC OnLine SC 433

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 20 of 33

the determination of just compensation and necessarily

requires a careful scrutiny of medical evidence and its

impact on the avocation of the injured. A failure to

undertake such an exercise could amount to the

commission of an error in law on the part of the tribunal or

the court.

5.7.1 In S. Ettiappan vs. D. Kumar

15

, the appellant

was working as a loader, who used to load and unload

vegetables into the vehicles. In such an activity as a loader,

it required the appellant to use both his legs. Due to the

injury caused in the accident, his right leg below the knee

was amputated, and he became immobile and was not in a

position to work as a loader. The High Court had assessed

the disability of the said appellant to the extent of 70%.

5.7.2 The following observations in S. Ettiappan

(supra) stand in good stead,

“…. However, the High Court while re-appreciating

the evidence has restricted the whole-body

disability at 70% on the basis of Medical Board

Certificate (Ex. C-1) without noticing the fact that

on account of said disability suffered by the

claimant, his functional disability would be 100%.

It is not in dispute that appellant was working as a

loader who used to discharge his duties of loading

15 (2026) 1 TAC 84 (SC)

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 21 of 33

and unloading vegetables into the vehicles. This

physical or manual activity would require support

of both legs or in other words claimant is required

to use both the legs for discharging his duties as a

loader. By virtue of amputation of his right leg

below the knee, he has become immobile or in

other words, he is not in a position to discharge

his daily routine work as a loader…..”

(Para 7.1)

5.7.3 It was added that to earn his bread, he had to

work by loading or unloading vegetable into the vehicle

which was the only avocation he was carrying on. Now by

virtue of amputation of his leg below the knee appellant is

not only unable to work as a loader but even unable to

stand without support. As such the functional disability

requires to be considered at 100% and not 70% as held by

High Court.

5.7.4 The appellant-claimant in the present case was

engaged in the carpentry work. While working as a

carpenter, he has to necessarily sit. Because of amputation

of the lower half part of the right leg, the appellant is not

able to sit in a squatted or crossed legged manner. He

cannot stand without support. He cannot work without the

help of an attendant. It is stated that the appellant has not

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 22 of 33

been able to pass stool in an Indian style outlet and he has

been severely handicapped in doing routine work.

5.7.5 As a skilled carpenter, the appellant used to run

the shop of carpentry and used to accept the contracts for

making furniture, almirahs, doors, and windows of newly

built houses. Appellant had the only source of income from

such work to upbring and to maintain his family which

consisted of his wife and two minor children.

5.7.6 When the appellant is not able to sit either in a

squatted way or with a crossed leg, it is evident that he will

not be able to perform the carpentry work. It is essential

and indispensable for a carpenter to sit to do the carpentry

works. A carpenter cannot perform such work while in a

standing position. For standing also, the appellant would

need support. Therefore, the actual effect of amputation

resulting out of the accidental injury for the appellant is

total in terms of the work in which he is engaged and he is

to perform, which really does not match and does not

augur well with the extent of 70% disability as medically

indicated. The disability of the appellant has to be

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 23 of 33

appreciated and assessed in the context of the occupation

of the appellant, activity of work he used to do as

carpenter. The functional disability of the appellant-

claimant has to be taken properly and reasonably at 100%.

Restoring Injured to same position

5.8The compensation for the injured for his or her

injuries and disability suffered, are classifiable into two

heads, pecuniary and non-pecuniary. In Mohd. Sabeer

alias Shabir Hussain (supra), this Court elaborately

delineated the principles which may govern the

determination of compensation towards both pecuniary

and non-pecuniary losses, in cases of permanent

disablement of the claimant. Both pecuniary damages and

non-pecuniary compensation deserve to be granted to the

claimant, stated this Court. The pecuniary damages are

those which the victim has actually incurred, which are

possible to be calculated in terms of money, whereas non-

pecuniary damages are incapable of being assessed by

arithmetical calculations.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 24 of 33

5.8.1 The Court emphasized that in case of permanent

disability, the claimant would be entitled to not just future

loss of income but also future prospects. Mohd. Sabeer

(supra) relied on the earlier judgment of this Court in

Anant vs. Pratap and Another

16

to reiterate that the

purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to the

position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible.

5.8.2 The following observations from Anant (supra)

came to be highlighted by Mohd. Sabeer (supra),

“ In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries

and disablements, it is a well settled principle that

a person must not only be compensated for his

physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary

losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The

claimant is entitled to be compensated for his

inability to lead a full life and enjoy those things

and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but

for the injuries.” (Para 22)

5.8.3 Mohd. Sabeer (supra) followed the decision in

R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and

Others

17

, to reproduce the heads of pecuniary damages as

well as the heads under the non-pecuniary damages to be

considered as part of compensation to the injured who has

16 (2018) 9 SCC 450

17 (1995) 1 SCC 551

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 25 of 33

suffered from disability. The pecuniary damages, it was

highlighted, comprised of expenses incurred by the

claimant such as: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning

of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss.

Similarly, as far as the non-pecuniary damages are

concerned, they would be under the heads of (i) damages

for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already

suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages

to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may

include a variety of matters that is on account of injury the

claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages

for the loss of expectation of life, that is, on account of

injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is

shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,

disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.

Expenses Towards Prosthetic Leg

5.9Amputation of a limb from the human body has its

own effect on the working ability, earning capacity and

quality of life in general. In the present case, half part of

the right leg of the appellant is amputated and he has been

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 26 of 33

using artificial leg. The prosthetic leg is not an all time

same attachment. By its very nature that it is artificial, it

would require replacement periodically. It would further

need maintenance to keep it properly functional. The

injured-appellant whose leg was amputated needs to be

compensated on this score also.

5.9.1 In Mohd. Sabeer (supra), it was the submission

that the cost of the prosthetic limb itself is more than

Rs.2,60,000/- and the life of the prosthetic limb is only 5

to 6 years. The prosthetic limb also requires repair and

maintenance after every six months, and each repair costs

between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. In Anant (supra), as

noted above, the claimant was held entitled to be

compensated for his inability to lead a full life and enjoy

those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed,

but for the injuries.

5.9.2 Applying the above principles in the present

case, the appellant-claimant is 38 years of age. Taking his

average life expectancy to be 75 years, he would require a

replacement of artificial limb at least six times for the

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 27 of 33

remaining 37 years. The prosthetic limb would again

require a half yearly repair and maintenance. The appellant

must be compensated in a manner and to the extent that

he is able to live life in the future years almost in the same

way as he was leading his life prior to the accident.

5.9.3 While the loss of leg cannot be compensated, the

appellant could be paid pecuniary compensation towards

the purchase of the prosthetic leg and its repairs. It would

tend to do justice. This consideration is indeed a part of

determining the just and fair compensation. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that Rs.10,00,000/- should be

awarded to the appellant towards the cost and

maintenance for the artificial leg he will require during his

lifetime. This is the minimum amount which he is qualified

for as part of the compensation payable under this head to

the appellant-claimant.

6.In the yearly income to be assessed on the basis of

monthly income at Rs.9,000/- and 40% will have to be

added towards ‘future prospects’. This would be in

accordance with the principles laid down in National

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 28 of 33

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi

18

. The calculation,

therefore, leading to the amount to be awarded towards

loss of future earnings with 100% disability would be

calculated thus (i) Monthly income at Rs.9,000/- (ii) Yearly

income 9000/- x 12 = 1,08,000/- (iii) Future prospects at

40% 1,08,000/- + 40% (43,200) = 1,51,200/-, (iv)

Multiplier 15% 1,51,200/- x 15 = 22,68,000/- (v) 100%

Disability 22,68,000/- x 100% = 22,68,000/-.

6.1In the above total amount, the compensation towards

other heads, such as towards medical expenses including

the expenses for prosthetic leg, towards pain, shock and

suffering, for attendant charges, in respect of medical

expenses, etc., will be added as indicated in the succeeding

paragraph 7 to arrive at the total amount of compensation.

Compensation Under Other Heads

7.Having regard to the nature of injury and the extent of

functional disability suffered by the appellant and in the

totality of facts and circumstances obtained, following

amounts are considered to be just and reasonable under

18 (2017) 16 SCC 680

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 29 of 33

different heads to be added to the total compensation

payable to the appellant.

(i) For ‘Future Medical Expenses’ including the

cost of prosthetic leg, considering the age of

the appellant and other relevant factors,

vis-à-vis periodicity for which the prosthetic

leg will have to be replaced, the amount is

required to be awarded. On the above total

count, this court considers it fit to award

total Rs. 10,00,000/-.

(ii) Under the head of ‘ Pain, Shock and

Suffering’, the High Court awarded

Rs.1,00,000/-. In S. Ettiappan (supra), the

similar facts and circumstances, same

amount was awarded by this Court,

therefore, the award of Rs. 1,00,000/-

under this head is maintained.

(iii) Towards ‘Loss of Amenities’, Rs. 50,000/- is

awarded.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 30 of 33

(iv) The appellant had to stay in the hospital for

one and a half months, about 43 days for

treatment. Therefore, in respect of ‘Loss of

Income During Laid Up Period’, Rs.

13,500/- (Rs. 9,000 x 1.5 = Rs. 13,500/-)

will be awardable.

(v) Considering that the appellant’s right leg is

amputated, he would need an attendant for

his day to day and other work. Under the

head of ‘Attendant Charges’, this Court

considers it fit to award Rs. 50,000/-.

Under the head of ‘Nutrition and Other

Incidental Charges’, the amount which

shall qualify towards compensation will be

Rs. 40,000/-.

(vi) ‘Medical Expenses’ as actually incurred and

awarded is Rs. 44,423/-, which have to be

awarded accordingly only to that extent.

(vii) Under the head of ‘Transportation Charges’,

while the appellant seeks amount of Rs.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 31 of 33

50,000/, it would be reasonable to award

Rs. 30,000/-.

7.1In view of the above, the total compensation which

would be payable to the appellant is calculated as under in

the tabular form,

S. No. Heads Amounts in Rupees

Yearly Income 9,000 x 12 = 1,08,000/-

Future prospects (40%) 1,08,000/- + 40% (43,200) =

1,51,200/-

Multiplier (15) 1,51,200/- x 15 = 22,68,000/-

1.Loss of future earnings

towards disability

22,68,000/- x 100% =

22,68,000/-

2.Pain, shock and suffering 1,00,000/-

3.Expenses towards prosthetic

leg

10,00,000/-

4.Loss of income during laid up

period

9,000 x 1.5 = 13,500/-

5.Attendant charges 50,000/-

6.Nutrition and other incidental

charges

40,000/-

7.Medical expenses 44,423/-

8.Transportation charges 30,000/-

9.Loss of amenities 50,000/-

10.TOTAL Rs. 35,95,923 /-

8.The above compensation of Rs. 35,95,923/-would be

just and fair compensation to be paid to the appellant-

claimant. The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to

receive the said total amount with 6% p.a. interest from the

date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 32 of 33

9.The additional entitlement of compensation payable to the

appellant shall be disbursed by the Claims Tribunal after

undergoing necessary procedure, including identification, by

directly transmitting the amount to the bank account of the

appellant.

10.The respondent No.1-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall

deposit the balance additional amount of Rs.24,44,500/-

(Rs.35,95,923/- – Rs.11,51,423/-) with interest at 6% p.a. as

provided above, with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks from

today. The said additional amount shall be disbursed in favour

of the appellant by undertaking the necessary process of

verification etc. and transferring the same to the bank account

of the appellant.

11.The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Any Interlocutory Application, if pending, shall not survive

in view of the disposal of main appeal as above.

.………………………...J.

[UJJAL BHUYAN]

………………………….J.

[N.V. ANJARIA]

NEW DELHI;

JUNE 24, 2026.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021 Page 33 of 33