The Supreme Court partially restored the Tribunal’s compensation award, upholding the adopted monthly income and modifying attendant charges. It clarified that in the absence of a cross-appeal by the claimant, enhancement beyond the Tribunal’s award or addition of future prospects cannot be claimed against the insurer’s appeal.
Facts Of The Case:
On January 5, 2013, the appellant, Ramar, was standing by the side of the road when a rashly and negligently driven lorry hit him. The accident resulted in grievous injuries, leading to the amputation of his right leg from the thigh and a crush injury to his left leg, which paralyzed it. Medical evidence presented before the Tribunal, including the testimony of treating doctors and hospital records, proved the nature of the injuries and assessed his functional disability at 100%. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal initially determined his income and awarded a total compensation. However, the High Court, in an appeal by the insurance company, significantly reduced the compensation amount, primarily by revising the monthly income downwards. This reduction prompted the appellant to file an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s computation of his monthly income and the compensation awarded for attendant charges.
Procedural History:
The case originated with a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation to the appellant. Dissatisfied, the National Insurance Company Limited filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court modified the award, substantially reducing the compensation. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, which was granted, leading to the present civil appeal. The Supreme Court’s ruling partially allowed the appeal by restoring the Tribunal’s calculation on monthly income and enhancing the attendant charges, thereby modifying the High Court’s order.
READ ALSO:Wrong Rules, Right Candidate: Supreme Court Reinstates Teacher, Secures Job for Rival Too
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in reducing the appellant’s monthly income by relying on the precedent of Syed Sadiq, which was factually distinct as it pertained to a case with no evidence of income from the year 2008. The Court found the Tribunal’s adoption of a monthly income of Rs. 11,000/-, based on the testimony of witnesses, to be justified. Furthermore, it held that the appellant, not having filed a cross-appeal against the Tribunal’s award, was barred from claiming the benefit of future prospects, which the High Court had erroneously granted. On attendant charges, the Court found the computations by both the Tribunal and the High Court flawed and, considering the appellant’s loss of both lower limbs, fixed a lump sum amount as just compensation.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It restored the monthly income of Rs. 11,000/- as determined by the Tribunal, rejecting the High Court’s reduced figure. The compensation for loss of future income was consequently reinstated. The Court also enhanced the attendant charges to a lump sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. However, it upheld the denial of future prospects, as the appellant had not filed a cross-appeal on this issue. The total compensation was modified and fixed at Rs. 24,86,500/-, to be paid with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the application.
Case Details:
Case Title: Ramar vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Civil/Criminal Appeal No.: (@ SLP (C) No.7840 of 2020) Date of Judgement: September 26, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Download The Judgement Here