ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA versus P. MUNIAM BABU AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 08-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ASHW ANI KUMAR MISHRA 
v. 
P. MUNIAM BABU AND ORS. 
APRIL 8, 1999 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Motcr Vehicles Act, 1988 : 
Sections 140, 141, 142, 146, 149, 166, 168, 171, 173-Compensation 
C against accident claim-Criteria to be followed by courts-Some guesswork, 
some hypothetical consideration and some amount of sympathy coupled with 
the nature and seriousness of injury are all relevant-But all these issues are 
to be viewed with objective standard~-Accident caused to the appellant in 
which he became permanently incapacitated to work-Required permanent 
D attendant to look after him for the rest of his life-Held, appellant was right 
in claiming a monthly income of Rs. 2, 000 while working with his father's 
firm-Absence of documentary evidence to show employment or income 
inconsequential-Compensation amount awarded by the High Court raised 
from Rs. 2,25,000 to Rs. 5,00,00(1. 
E 
Accident claim-Compensation for person working without being 
formally employed-Appellant met with an accident at the age of 23-
Became permanently incapacitated-At the time of accident working for the 
firm of his father-Appellant thus claiming to have been -earning Rs. 2000 
per month-Held, accident victim can claim regular monthly income for the 
purposes of calculating the amount of compensation by the court-Some 
F guesswork has to be applied in assessing the loss-Appellant's claim allowed. 
G 
. 
. 
Damages-Assessment of-1'1 a motor vehicle accident-Held, Court 
cannot base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy though conjectures 
to some extent are inevitable. 
The appellant at the tender age of 23 years met with an accident and 
suffered serious injuries to his spinal cord an became permanently disabled 
as a result of the accident. It was not in dispute that at the time of the 
accident the appellant was assisting his father who was the owner of a 
construction firm. Though the appellant was not formally employed by the 
H firm, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that he was travelling as an 
518 
.~. 
A.K. MISHRA v. P. MUNIAM BABU 
519 
agent of the firm at the time of accident. The appellant also claimed Rs. 2,000 A 
as his monthly income from the firm. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 
1,64, 037 as compensation with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The 
insurance company and the appellant both filed appeals before the High 
Court which raised the compensation to Rs. 2,25,000 along with an interest 
at the rate of 12% per annum. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that he was getting an income of Rs. 
2,000 at the time of his accident and prayed for applying a multiplier of 55 
for granting him compensation in lieu of loss of focome which he would have 
earned in the absence of accident in which he has been totally incapacitated. 
B 
It was contended by the insurance company that there was no proof of his C 
income and that he was not proved to have been an employee of his father. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Amount of compensation involves some guess work, some 
hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature D 
of disability caused but all such elements are required to be viewed with 
objective standards. While assessing damage, the court cannot base its 
opinion merely on speculation or fancy though conjectures to some extent 
are inevitable. (502-A-B) 
R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd & Ors., (1995] 1 SCC E 
551, relied on. 
1.2. In the instant case, the appellant has been awarded Rs. 94,037 as 
expenses incurred on medical care, Rs, 20,000 for special diet and r.xpenses 
for attendant during treatment. For his becoming permanently disabled and 
paraplegic on account of the injury and damages caused to his spinal cord, F 
the appellant, who admittedly has been held permanently incapacitated has 
been granted only Rs. l,00,000. The appellant was right in claiming his 
income at Rs. 2,000 per month while working with his father and even if the 
multiplier of 16 is applied he is entitled to a claim of Rs. 3,84,000 on account 
of loss of expectation of life besides disappointment, frustration and mental G 
stress particularly when he has to keep a permanent attendant to look after 
him during the rest of his life. Adding this amount to the amount of Rs. 
1,14,000 to which the appellant has rightly been held entitled on account of 
expenses incurred on medical care and for the pain and suffering during the 
period

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.