HANUMANTHARAJU B (DEAD) BY LR. versus M AKRAM PASHA & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1023 · Decided: 13-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1023 : 2025 INSC 682
Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR. 
v. 
M Akram Pasha & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 6844-6845 of 2025)
13 May 2025
[Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether it would be just and proper, in the instant case, to 
accept 78% disability as assessed by the Tribunal appointed 
Commissioner; whether any amount receivable on account of PF, 
pension or insurance be deducted from the salary of the victim 
for the purpose of determining the income or loss of earning for 
calculating compensation; whether the appellants are entitled for 
enhancement of the compensation amount.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Accident Claim – Original 
appellant (who died during pendency of this appeal) met with 
an accident and sustained grievous injuries – Medical board 
certified sufferings from physical disabilities at 61.94% – 
Appellant filed Motor Accident Claim – The MACT awarded an 
amount to the original appellant taking disability at 61.94% as 
assessed by the Medical Board – The High Court remanded the 
matter to the Tribunal with the direction to reconsider – MACT 
appointed a Commissioner who testified disability at 77.72% – 
The MACT held that it would be just and proper to take the 
disability at 50% to meet the ends of justice – The MACT, after 
reconsideration, awarded a total amount of Rs.31,64,896/- – 
High Court reduced the compensation award by deducting 
pension amount from salary and reducing the rate of interest – 
Assessed disability at 61.94% – No amount awarded for loss of 
future prospects – The High Court computed the compensation 
amount of Rs.27,47,63.25/- – Correctness: 
Held: It is well settled that the amount of compensation is to be 
calculated on the basis of last drawn salary of the injured/deceased 
in respect of salaried persons and pension and such retirement 
benefits enjoyed cannot be deducted for computing the income, 
these being statutory rights receivable by the employee or his legal 
* Author
1024
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
heirs irrespective of any unforeseen incident of accidents, fatal 
injuries etc. and such pensionary benefit is not directly relatable 
to the motor accident – Hence, pensionary benefit could not have 
been treated as “pecuniary advantage” liable to be deducted for 
the purpose of computation of compensation within the scope of 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – As far as future prospects is concerned, 
in view of the dictum in Pranay Sethi, the original appellant would 
be entitled to an addition of 30% of the income towards loss of 
future prospects as the original appellant was 43 years when 
he met with the accident – Coming to the issue of disability, it 
may be apposite to recollect that while the Medical Board had 
assessed the disability at 61.94%, the Commissioner appointed 
by the Tribunal had assessed it to be 77.72% which was rounded 
off to 78% – The Tribunal could not have doubted the correctness 
of the assessment made by the Commissioner and could have 
accepted the same, yet for a strange reason that there was no 
material evidence to show that the original appellant was rendered 
completely incapacitated or that he was doing any job after his 
discharge from the services, the Tribunal reduced the disability 
to 50% holding that it would meet the ends of justice – There is 
no reason as to why the Tribunal did not accept the same to the 
effect that the disability was 78% – Similarly, no reason has been 
assigned by the High Court why it chose to accept the assessment 
of 61.94% – It may be also noted that the subsequent assessment 
was made during the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal 
and the concerned Doctor/Commissioner who had treated the 
original appellant made the assessment and had testified before 
the Tribunal and cross examined by the Insurance Company and 
his evidence had remained unshaken – Under the circumstances, it 
would be just and proper to accept 78% disability – The appropriate 
multiplier would be 14 as had been applied by the Tribunal and 
the High Court – This Court is of the view that the compensation 
awarded to the original appellant should be enhanced – Accordingly, 
the an amount of Rs. 67,36,084/- is to be released in the favour 
of the appellants at the rate of interest of 7% simple interest p.a. 
[Paras 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29]
Case Law Cited
Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & 
Anr. [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : 2009

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