http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5108 of 2007

PETITIONER: Sunil Kumar

RESPONDENT: Ram Singh Gaud & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/11/2007

BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & D.K. Jain

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R Civil Appeal No.5108 of 2007 (arising out of SLP ) No. 19611 of 2005)

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Factual background of the case is that on 10th July,  2003, appellant was driving his mini truck No.MP 20 G-7705  towards Bargi along with one Ramesh Prajapati.  When the  mini truck reached Chulha Gulhai, a truck dumper bearing  No.MP 18-6392 came from the opposite side, which was being  driven in rash and negligent manner and hit the mini truck  of the appellant with the result that the appellant  sustained grievous injuries on his leg.  He suffered three  fractures including one at tibia.  He was examined by the  Medical Board. After examining the injuries, Board came to  the conclusion that the appellant had suffered 45%  permanent disability.  Appellant was 29 years of age at the  time of accident and was working as a driver and earning  Rs.4,000/- per month.  

3.      FIR was lodged.  A claim was also filed against the  owner of truck dumper as well as the insurance company  before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short \021the  Tribunal\022) for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor  Vehicles Act, 1998 (for short \021the Act\022), inter alia,  stating that in the accident, appellant suffered fracture  in his tibia and two other places. Appellant claimed  Rs.8,20,000/- by way of compensation.   

4.      Tribunal by its order dated 25th June, 2004 awarded a  compensation of Rs.45,000/- for the 45% permanent  disability suffered by the appellant; Rs.21,000/- towards  the amount spent on the treatment and Rs.6,000/- for  physical pain and mental agony suffered by the appellant.   Thus, a total sum of Rs.72,000/- was awarded as  compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the  date of the claim petition till payment.   

5.      Being aggrieved, appellant filed an appeal in the High  Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which has been  dismissed by the impugned order.   

6.      Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends  that as a result of the impact of injuries suffered by the  appellant, the appellant cannot pursue his vocation of  driving any longer and the Tribunal as well as the High

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

Court have grossly erred in not awarding any compensation  towards the loss of his earning capacity.  That, keeping in  view the injuries suffered by him, the compensation awarded  is too low.  Counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance  Company Limited, Respondent No.3, has supported the  judgment and order passed by the courts below.

7.      Learned counsels for the parties have been heard at  length.   

8.      We find substance in the submission put forth by the  counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal as well as the High  Court have not awarded any compensation towards loss of  future income.  After the fracture of tibia, it is doubtful  if the appellant can even drive again. Even if he pursues  some other vocation, he would not be able to earn as much  as he is earning now.  The disability suffered by the  appellant would surely reduce his earning capacity.  Therefore, the appellant is required to be compensated for  the loss of earning due to the injuries suffered by him in  the accident.

9.      Taking into consideration the present income of the  appellant as Rs.4,000/- per month; and the permanent  disability of 45% suffered by him, we are of the view that  the capacity of the appellant to earn in future would be  reduced by Rs.1,800/- per month approximately.  If 1/3rd is  deducted towards miscellaneous expenses, the loss of income  comes to Rs.1,200/- per month which, in turn, comes to  Rs.14,400/- per annum.  Appellant was 29 years of age at  the time of accident. Taking the multiplier to be 18 [as  per the Second Schedule to Section 163A of the Act], the  total loss of income comes to Rs.2,59,200/-.   

10.     For the reasons stated above, the loss of income is  assessed at Rs.2,59,200/-. The appellant would be entitled  to the aforesaid amount in addition to the sum already  awarded by the Tribunal, which has been upheld by the High  Court.  The appellant would be entitled to interest at the  same rate, i.e., 6% per annum on the enhanced amount as  well from the date of filing of the claim petition till  realization.   

11.     Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order  passed by the Courts below stands modified to the extent  indicated above.