MOHD. SABEER @ SHABIR HUSSAIN versus REGIONAL MANAGER, U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 09-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 427
427
MOHD. SABEER @ SHABIR HUSSAIN
v.
REGIONAL MANAGER, U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022)
DECEMBER 09, 2022
[KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Motor Vehicle – Accident – Claim – Assessment of
compensation – Permanent Disability Percentage – Appellant was
travelling in a bus which was driven in a rash and negligent manner
by the respondent – Bus met with an accident and the appellant
received grave injuries – The MACT (Tribunal) by holding that it
was the rash and negligent driving that caused the accident,
awarded a compensation of 15,76,465/- – High Court modified and
enhanced the compensation to 16,70,932/- – High Court assessed
the appellant’s functional disability as 35% – On appeal, held: As
per the disability certificate, the appellant suffered 70% disability
– The functional disability of the appellant will severely impact his
earning capacity – The 35% functional disability calculated by the
High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case
and the loss of future earning capacity of appellant must be
calculated at 60% – It is a well settled position of law that in cases
of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant
is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects
– Considering the nature of the permanent disability caused by the
accident and the effect it will have on the appellant’s life, the
compensation provided by the High Court for non- pecuniary heads
is inadequate – In case of permanent disability, the courts must
look case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic
background of the claimants.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Appellant herein has suffered permanent
disability of 70% and has an amputated right lower limb amongst
other injuries. The High Court has wrongly taken the view that
the Appellant has only suffered 35% functional disability. The
Appellant is not a salaried person but is self-employed who
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
manages his business. For the Appellant to be able to augment
his income, he is most definitely required to move around. The
Appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility
further. This proves that the functional disability of the Appellant
will severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35% functional
disability calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts
and circumstances of the case and in this Courts’ view the loss of
future earning capacity must be calculated at 60%. [Para 16][436-
E-F]
FUTURE PROSPECTS
2. It is a well settled position of law that in cases of
permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant
is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future
prospects. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple
instances that “just compensation” must be interpreted in such
a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was
before the accident took place. The accident that caused the injury
took place on 12.06.2009. The acknowledgement of both the
Income Tax Returns produced by the Appellant show that Tax
Returns were till 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009. Both the Income
Tax Returns produced as proof of income were from before the
accident took place, and hence the High Court’s finding that the
income of the Appellant has increased after the disability is
incorrect. It is also to be noted that even if the income of the
Appellant had increased after the accident, it would not be enough
grounds to disable the Appellant from claiming compensation for
future prospect as the rise in income may be attributed to multiple
other factors. [Paras 18-20][437-A-D]
COMPENSATION FOR THE PURCHASE AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE PROSTHETIC LEG
3. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic
limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15
years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to
be replaced after a few years. TheAppellant was only 37 years at
the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume
that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is
able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able
to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age.
For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded
compensation of Rs. 

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