RESHMA versus DAJIBA KRISHNA LAD & ANR.

[2025] 10 S.C.R. 1586 : 2025 INSC 1320

Reshma v. Dajiba Krishna Lad & Anr.

(Civil Appeal No. 13627 of 2025)

14 October 2025

[Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal and the High Court did not award appropriate and just compensation and the same ought to be enhanced.

Headnotes

Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Compensation – Enhancement of – Just compensation – Claimant-appellant aged 24 years sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident owing to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1 – Assessing the income of the appellant @Rs.10,000/- p.m, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.30,24,800/- with interest @ 9% p.a. – Though, the High Court increased the compensation to Rs.35,86,400/- however, reassessed her income @ Rs.9,000/- p.m – Challenge to – Plea of the appellant that the High Court reduced her income by Rs.1000/; no compensation was awarded under the head of marriage prospects; disfigurement; grossly insufficient compensation was awarded under the heads of attendant charges; and future medical expenses:

Held: The accident rendered the appellant, a 24-year-old female severely disabled and she suffered grave, life-altering consequences turning her entire life upside down crushing all her wants and desires which includes prospects to lead a happy marital life – Tribunal rightly assessed the disability of the appellant to be 100% – High Court assessed the income of the appellant @Rs.9,000/- p.m in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence – In the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal and the High Court did not award appropriate and just compensation – Compensation awarded/enhanced under various heads – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.85,09,369/-, with interest as awarded by the High Court. [Paras 8, 11-12]

Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Just Compensation – Object, stated. [Para 10]

Case Law Cited

Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [2020] 3 SCR 622 : (2020) 4 SCC 413; Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon [2022] 16 SCR 1 : (2022) 8 SCC 489; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680; Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2010] 11 SCR 857 : (2010) 10 SCC 254; K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. [2024] 11 SCR 835 : 2024 SCC Online SC 3385; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [2010] 13 SCR 179 : (2011) 1 SCC 343 – relied on.

Jiju Kuruvilla & Others v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Others [2013] 7 SCR 276 : (2013) 9 SCC 166 – referred to.

List of Keywords

Motor vehicle accident; Motor vehicle accident claim; Rash and negligent driving; Enhancement of compensation; Compensation enhanced; Just compensation; Appropriate and just compensation not awarded; Insufficient compensation; Reassessment of income; Marriage prospects; Future medical expenses; Attendant charges; Two attendants; Pain and suffering; 100% Permanent Disability; Object of just compensation.

Case Arising From

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13627 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2024 of the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in MFA No. 102764 of 2018

Appearances for Parties

Advs. for the Appellant:

Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Sharanagouda Patil, Jyotish Pandey, Vinod Kumar Srivastava.

Advs. for the Respondent:

Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ms. Shuchi Singh, Shuchi Singh, Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Vivek Kumar Pandey, Ms. Shivani Mishra.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

Time taken for the disposal of the claim petition

Time taken for the disposal of the appeal by the High Court

Time taken for the disposal of the appeal in this Court

1 year, 5 months, 7 days

5 years, 11 months, 29 days

7 months, 8 days

Leave granted.

2. The claimant-appellant before us lays challenge to the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad dated 24.09.2024 which, in turn, was preferred against 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.

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 medical expenses. Interest has been sought at the enhanced rate of 12% per annum as per Jiju Kuruvilla & others vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & others¹.

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 not 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 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 pronouncement in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand², 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 Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon³, considering severe injuries like “cerebral 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

Compensation Heads

Amount Awarded

In Accordance with:

Monthly Income

Rs.9,000/-

Yearly Income

Rs.1,08,000/-

Future Prospects

(40%)

1,08,000/- + 43,200/-

= Rs. 1,51,200/-

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 42 and 59

Multiplier (18)

1,51,200/- X 18

= Rs. 27,21,600/-

Permanent Disability (100%)

100% of 27,21,600/-

= Rs.27,21,600/-

Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 Para 13 and 14

Loss of Income/Future Earnings due to Disability

Rs.27,21,600/-

Attendant

Charges

43,20,000/-

(10000/-x 2 x 12 x 18)

For 2 Attendants

Abhimanyu Pratap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, (2022) 8 SCC 489 Para 23

Medical Expenses

4,14,769/-

Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 Para 19, 25 and 28

Conveyance, other incidental charges

25,000/-

Future Medical Expenditure

25,000/-

Marriage Prospects

4,00,000/-

Pain and Suffering

5,00,000/-

K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14

Loss of Amenities

1,00,000/-

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 Para 6

TOTAL

Rs. 85,09,369/-

Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:

MACT

High Court

This Court

Rs.30,24,800/-

Rs.35,86,400/-

Rs.85,09,369/-

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). The amount be remitted positively before 30th November, 2025.

Pending application(s) if any shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

1 (2013) 9 SCC 166

2 (2020) 4 SCC 413

3 (2022) 8 SCC 489