S. Shakul Hameed Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited (Supreme Court of India)
Income and Disability Must Be Realistically Assessed: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim
The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant who suffered permanent disability in a motor accident, holding that the income and disability assessment adopted by the Tribunal and modified by the High Court was partly erroneous. Although the claim petition mentioned Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court found that the pleadings clearly alleged rash and negligent driving, and the quantum claimed exceeded the structured formula. The claim was therefore rightly treated as one under Section 166, warranting a realistic assessment of loss.
In the absence of documentary proof of income, the Court held that adoption of the notional income under the Second Schedule was unjustified. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court fixed the appellant’s monthly income at ₹5,000, considering the accident occurred in 2005. Applying the appropriate multiplier of 17, adding 40% towards future prospects (the appellant being self-employed), and accepting 50% permanent disability as assessed by the Tribunal, the Court recalculated the loss of income at ₹7,14,000.
The Court also disapproved the High Court’s reduction of disability from 50% to 40% in the absence of any appeal by the insurer, holding such interference to be impermissible. The amounts awarded under other conventional heads were left undisturbed.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the respondent Transport Corporation was directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum within three months, reaffirming that just compensation requires pragmatic and humane assessment, not rigid adherence to outdated schedules
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
