REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7223 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.1827 of 2010)

Yadava Kumar  ..Appellant(s)

Versus  

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another ..Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Assailing  the  Division  Bench  judgment  of  the  

Karnataka  High  Court  dated  12.8.2009,  whereby  

compensation of Rs.52,000/- granted by the Tribunal  

was enhanced to Rs.72,000/-, this appeal claiming  

higher compensation was filed by the appellant.

1

4. The  Hon’ble  High  Court  has  awarded  compensation  

under the following heads:

1. Towards pain and suffering: Rs.20,000/-

2. Loss  of  income  from  the  period  of  

treatment: Rs.9,000/-

3. Towards  medical  expenses,  conveyance,  

nourishing  food  and  attendant  charges:  

Rs.8,000/-

4. Towards loss of amenities: Rs.35,000/-

Total: Rs.72,000/- + 8% p.a. interest from  

the date of the petition till realization.

5. The  material  facts  of  the  case  are  that,  the  

appellant, a painter by profession, was 30 years old  

at  the  time  of  sustaining  the  injury  in  a  road  

accident which took place on 24th March 2003 while  

the appellant was standing on the side of Nagavara  

Ring  Road  to  cross  it  from  south  to  north.  The  

offending Tempo bearing No.KA-04-C/6030 came at a  

great speed from west to east and hit the appellant  

as a result of which he fell down and sustained  

several injuries. The appellant was rushed to Al-

Habeeb  Hospital  where  he  was  treated.  The  claim  

petition was filed on 3rd February, 2006.

2

6. About  the  nature  of  the  injury  sustained  by  the  

appellant,  the evidence  of PW-2  Dr. S.  Ranjanna,  

Orthopaedic Surgeon, Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital,  

Bangalore  is  very  crucial.  PW-2  examined  the  

appellant on 26.11.05. As per the wound certificate  

and X-ray report of Al-Habeeb Hospital, Bangalore,  

PW-2  noted  that  the  appellant  sustained  the  

following injuries:

“(1) Fracture of distal end of left radius  with  fracture  of  left  ulnar  styloid  process.

  (2) Fracture  of  distal  end  of  right  radius  with  mild  diastases  is  Radioulnar  joint and soft tissue swelling around wrist  joint.”

7. Even on examination on 26.11.05,which is after two  

and a half years after the date of incident, PW-2  

found the following injuries on the appellant:

(1) Deformity of right wrist (2) Limitation of right wrist movements by  

40% (3) Limitation of right forearm movements  

by 30% (4) Wasting of right forearm muscles by 3  

cms (5) Weak Right hand grip (6) Limitation  of  left  wrist  movement  by  

25% (7) Tenderness over left wrist

3

(8) Instability of left in favour of Radio  ulnar joint

(9) Weakness of left hand

8. PW-2  opined  that  in  view  of  the  injuries  the  

appellant cannot perform any hard work, cannot lift  

any weight and cannot perform any work smoothly and  

after referring to various guidelines in manual PW-2  

opined that the appellant has disability of 33% of  

right upper limb and 21% to left upper limb and 20%  

total disability of the whole body. In view of such  

disability, appellant cannot work as a painter and  

cannot  do  any  other  manual  work  also.  In  cross-

examination  also  PW-2  admitted  that  even  if  the  

appellant continues his old vocation as a painter,  

he has to do it with difficulty.

9. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have failed to  

incorporate any thing by way of compensation in the  

category of ‘loss of future earnings’ in spite of  

recognizing the fact that there is disability of 33%  

in the right upper limb, 21% in the left upper limb  

and 20% in respect of the whole body, which does not  

allow the appellant to paint as he did earlier.

4

10. The Second Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor  

Vehicles Act, 1988 gives a structured formula for  

the calculation of compensation in accident cases.  

Section 5 of the Schedule deals with disability in  

non-fatal accidents and reads as follows:

“5. Disability in non-fatal accidents:

The  following  compensation  shall  be  payable  in  case  of  disability  to  the  victim arising out of non-fatal accidents:  Loss of income, if any, for actual period  of  disablement  not  exceeding  fifty  two  weeks.

PLUS either of the following:-

(a) In  case  of  permanent  total  disablement  the  amount  payable  shall  be  arrived  at  by  multiplying  the  annual  loss  of  income  by  the  Multiplier  applicable to the age on the date  of determining the compensation,  or

(b) In  case  of  permanent  partial  disablement  such  percentage  of  compensation  which  would  have  been  payable  in  the  case  of  permanent  total  disablement  as  specified under item (a) above.

Injuries  deemed  to  result  in  Permanent Total Disablement/Permanent  Partial Disablement and percentage of  loss of earning capacity shall be as  per  Schedule  I  under  Workmen’s  Compensation Act, 1923.”

11. Thus,  the  multiplier  method  is  to  be  applied  in  

cases of injuries also and it has been applied in a  

5

number of accident cases by High Courts and this  

Court.

12. This Court in  Sunil Kumar Vs.  Ram Singh Gaud and  others – 2008 ACJ 9, awarded compensation in case of  injury for loss of future earnings and applied the  

multiplier method for calculation of the same. The  

same principle was recognized by this Court in Priya  Vasant Kalgutkar Vs. Murad Shaikh & Ors. – AIR 2010  SC 40.

13. In Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Ramdutt and Ors. – 2006  ACJ  1792,  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  applied  the  

multiplier method keeping in mind the percentage by  

which  the  injured  person’s  earning  capacity  was  

reduced.  A  similar  calculation  was  made  by  the  

Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Syed Nisar  Ahmed Vs.  The  Managing  Director,  Bangalore  Metropolitan Transport Corporation – 2003 5 Karn.  L.J. 186.

14. In this case, the appellant has sustained a fracture  

of distal end of left radius with fracture of left  

ulnar  styloid process  and fracture  distal end  of  

6

right radius with mild diastosis and soft tissues  

swelling around wrist joint. The doctor has assessed  

the disability at 33% in respect of the right upper  

limb and 21% towards left upper limb and 20% in  

respect  of  the  whole  body,  which  prevents  the  

appellant from painting in view of multiple injuries  

sustained by him.

15. The Hon’ble High Court while granting compensation  

refused to award any amount towards loss of future  

earning. Though that point was specifically urged  

before  the  Hon’ble  High  Court,  the  Hon’ble  High  

Court  refused  any  compensation  towards  loss  of  

future earning by, inter alia, holding that:

“We  are  of  the  view  that,  the  said  submission  has  no  force  for  the  reason  that,  the  appellant  has  not  produced  an  iota  of  document  to  substantiate  his  stand.”

16. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid view of  

the High Court.  

17. While assessing compensation in accident cases, the  

High Court or the Tribunal must take a reasonably  

compassionate view of things. It cannot be disputed  

that the appellant being a painter has to earn his  

7

livelihood by virtue of physical work. The nature of  

injuries  which  he  admittedly  suffered,  and  about  

which the evidence of PW-2 is quite adequate, amply  

demonstrates  that  carrying  those  injuries  he  is  

bound  to  suffer  loss  of  earning  capacity  as  a  

painter and a consequential loss of income is the  

natural outcome.

18. It  goes  without  saying  that  in  matters  of  

determination of compensation both the Tribunal and  

the  Court  are  statutorily  charged  with  a  

responsibility of fixing a ‘just compensation’. It  

is  obviously  true  that  determination  of  a  just  

compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the  

same  time  the  concept  of  ‘just  compensation’  

obviously suggests application of fair and equitable  

principles and a reasonable approach on the part of  

the Tribunals and Courts. This reasonableness on the  

part of the Tribunal and Court must be on a large  

peripheral field. Both the Courts and Tribunals in  

the  matter  of  this  exercise  should  be  guided  by  

principles of good conscience so that the ultimate  

result become just and equitable (See Mrs. Helen C.  

8

Rebello  and  others Vs.  Maharashtra  State  Road  Transport Corpn. and another – AIR 1998 SC 3191).

19. This Court also held that in the determination of  

the  quantum  of  compensation,  the  Court  must  be  

liberal and not niggardly in as much as in a free  

country law must value life and limb on a generous  

scale  (See  Hardeo  Kaur  and  others Vs.  Rajasthan  State Transport Corporation and another – (1992) 2  SCC 567).

20. The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that  

there  is  a  distinction  between  compensation  and  

damage. The expression compensation may include a  

claim  for  damage  but  compensation  is  more  

comprehensive.  Normally  damages  are  given  for  an  

injury  which  is  suffered,  whereas  compensation  

stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for  

the  atonement of  injury caused  and the  intention  

behind  grant  of  compensation  is  to  put  back  the  

injured  party  as  far  as  possible  in  the  same  

position, as if the injury has not taken place, by  

way  of  grant  of  pecuniary  relief.  Thus,  in  the  

matter of computation of compensation, the approach  

9

will be slightly more broad based than what is done  

in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same  

time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or  

mathematical  precision  in  the  matter  of  

determination of compensation.

21. Going by these principles, as we must, this Court is  

constrained  to  observe  that  in  this  case  the  

approach of the High Court in totally refusing to  

grant any compensation for loss of future earning is  

not a correct one.

22. This Court could have remanded the matter to the  

High  Court for  assessment of  compensation on  the  

aforesaid lines but the accident took place in March  

2003  and  a  remand  to  the  High  Court  for  

determination of compensation will further delay the  

matter. Therefore, to shorten litigation, and having  

regard to this Court’s power under Article 142 of  

the Constitution to do complete justice between the  

parties, this Court itself assesses the compensation  

as follows:

10

Therefore, in the present case, the loss of future  

income  may  be  calculated  using  the  multiplier  

method as follows:

Income of the appellant (as accepted by the  High Curt) is Rs.3,000/- p.m. Therefore, the  yearly income is Rs.36,000/-.

Multiplier according to age (30 years) as per  Schedule is 17.

Thus,the total comes to:  Rs.36,000/- x 17 = Rs.6,12,000/-.

Percentage of disablement is 20%

Therefore, loss of future earnings would come  to Rs.1,22,400/-.

23. If this is added to the compensation provided by the  

High  Court  in  other  categories,  the  total  

compensation comes to Rs.1,22,400/- + Rs.72,000/-,  

that is Rs.1,94,400/-.  

24. This Court, therefore, grants a lump sum of Rupees  

Two Lakhs by way of compensation plus 8% interest as  

granted by the High Court.

25. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.  

There will be no order as to costs.

11

.....................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

.....................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi   August 31, 2010

12