http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2869-2870 of 2008

PETITIONER: RAEESH AHMAD

RESPONDENT: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE LTD. & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/2008

BENCH: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & R.V.RAVEENDRAN

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2869-2870 OF 2008                        (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 15357/2006)

           RAEESH AHMAD                                       .. APPELLANT

                     vs.

           UNITED INDIA INSURANCE LTD. & ANR.                 .. RESPONDENTS

                                                   ORDER

          Leave granted.

          Heard both sides.

   2      The appellant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident involving a

   tempo belonging to second respondent and insured with first respondent and

   another tempo in which he was travelling. He was admitted to an hospital and

   underwent surgery twice for his fractured leg which required insertion of a rod.

   He was in the hospital for more than eight months.

3        He filed a claim petition before the Motors Accident Claims Tribunal

claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.48,000/-

towards medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses.

                                        -2-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

In regard to loss of future earnings, it found the disability to be 30%.        The

Tribunal assessed the annual income of appellant as Rs.36,000/-; and as the

appellant had suffered 30% disability, it calculated the future loss of earning with

reference to a multiplier of 16, that is 30% of 36000 X 16=172800/- (rounded off to

Rs.1,72,000/-). Thus, it awarded Rs.2,45,000/- in all as compensation.

   4   On appeal by the first respondent, the High court reduced the

   compensation to Rs.99,000/-. The High court was of the view that the Tribunal

   ought not to have taken the permanent disability as 30% as the disability could

   not be said to be permanent as there was likelihood of improvement.             It

   therefore, deleted the award of Rs.1,72,000/- towards loss of future earning

   capacity. It however added Rs.11,000/- as loss of income for nine months

   (period of treatment) and Rs.15000/- towards paid and suffering to arrive at

   Rs.99,000/- as compensation. The said judgment is challenged by the claimant.

5        We find that the High Court has misread the disability certificate. The

certificate dated 23.2.2004 showed that disability as 30%. There is no acceptable

medical evidence to show that the condition of appellant will improve or that the

permanent disability will disappear.

                                       -3-

4       Having regard to the said position, we are of the view that the High Court

should not have interfered with the quantum of compensation. We are of the view

that the total compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was just

compensation. Accordingly, we allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of

the High Court and restore the Award of the Tribunal.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

                                ...................C.J.I.                   (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

                                      .....................J.                                        (R.V.RAVEENDRAN) NEW DELHI; APRIL 21, 2008.