IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 5115   OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9201/2009]

  REJENDRA ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

  PRADEEP AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment  

and order dated 21st October, 2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of  

Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, Indore in Miscellaneous Appeal No.  

2775/2007,  whereby  and  whereunder  the  appellant  was  awarded  a  lump  sum  

compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.  

3. The appellant, who is a professor, was travelling in a Qualis jeep. The said  

vehicle collied with a truck. The appellant suffered serious injuries in his left hand  

and right leg.  Rods had to be inserted in both the limbs.  He suffered fractures also in  

those  limbs.  Permanent  disability  suffered  by  him  was  assessed  at  35%  by  an  

orthopedic surgeon. A  total  sum  of  Rs. 1,50,137/-  was  awarded by the Motor  

-2-

Accident Claims Tribunal towards the injuries sustained by him, pain and suffering

as also the disability.  The High Court, however, increased the said sum by way of a  

lump sum amount to Rs. 1,75,000/- but it did not assign any reason therefor.  

4. The Second Schedule  appended to the Motor Vehicles  Act,  1988 provides  

that in a case of  this  nature,  the amount of  compensation should be calculated in  

terms thereof.  Appellant's income was determined at Rs. 3,000/- per month. As he  

was  aged 25  years  on  the  date  of  accident,  a  multiplier  of  17  should  be  applied.  

Calculating the amount of compensation on that basis, he was entitled to Rs. 2,14,000/-  

towards the loss of income, which we hereby order. He would also be entitled to the  

medical expenses incurred by him and compensation on other heads would be granted  

to him as awarded by the Tribunal.   

5. The  enhanced  amount  shall  also  carry  interest  at  the  same  rate  as  was  

granted by the High Court i.e at the rate of 6% per annum.   

6. The appeal is allowed to the extent above mentioned.

....................J (S.B. SINHA)

....................J   (DEEPAK VERMA) NEW DELHI, AUGUST 4, 2009.