PRIYA VASANT KALGUTKAR versus MURAD SHAIKH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 29-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 591 
PRIYA VASANT KALGUTKAR 
v. 
MURAD SHAIKH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4795 of 2009) 
JULY 29, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.,... s. 166 - Claim petition under 
A 
B 
- Girl aged 9 years suffered 10% permanent disability -
Compensation of Rs. 72, 783 by tribunal - High Court C 
enhancing it to Rs. 1, 12, 0001- - On appeal, held: Where no 
income is proved, notional income for payment of 
compensation to those who had no income prior to accident, 
sum of Rs. 15, 0001- p.a. is considered as multiplicand -
Multiplier of 15 is to be applied - On facts, girl was a child at o 
the time of the accident and had no income - No evidence 
brought on record as to actual damages -· Hence, 
compensation granted by High Court is adequate. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
E 
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in 
awarding compensation of Rs.1, 12,0001- to a young girl 
aged 9 years who suffered permanent disability of 10% 
in a motor vehicle accident. · 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: Appellant was· a child at the time of the 
accident. She had no earning. What amount could be 
awarded towards future loss of earning or prospective 
lo.ss of earning could not have been determined on the 
G 
basis of any legal principle. Compensation for the injuries 
suffered by a person in a motor vehicle accident can be· 
determined either on the basis of the actual damages 
suffered or upon application of the structured formula. 
591 
H 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A Although for the purpose of invoking the provisions of 
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a legal 
principle may be found in the Second Schedule thereof. 
The Second Schedule provides that where no income is 
proved, notional income for the purpose of payment of 
B compensation to those who had no income prior to 
accident, a sum of Rs.15,000/- per annum would be 
considered as the multiplicand. The multiplier required to 
be applied would be 15. Under the head of disability in 
non-fatal accident, the amount of compensation can be 
c determined only on that basis. Even by that standard, the 
amount of compensation granted by the High Court 
appears to be adequate in absence of any evidence 
having brought on record as to the actual damages. 
[Paras 7, 8 and 9] [549-F, G; 596-A; 598-F] 
D 
E 
Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197, relied 
on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2001) 8 sec 191 
Relied on. 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
4795 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 6.1.2006 of the High 
F Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 1386 of 2004. 
P.V. Viswantha Shetty, Sharan Thakur, Murth Naik, D.S. 
Thakur, Dr. Sushil Balwada for the Appellants. 
Dr. Meera Agarwal for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Appellant is a young girl. She met with an accident on 
H 
PRIYA VASANT KALGUTKAR v. MURAD SHAIKH & ORS. 593 
[S.S. SINHA, J.] 
/ 
or about 20.9.199.9 while she was aged only 9 years. In the said 
A 
ai;;cident she suffered the following injuries, as stated in the 
application filed on her behalf before the Mot:x Accidents 
Claims Tribunal : 
1. 
There is swelling deformity & fracture of middle 3rd 
B 
of Lt. thigh (femur shaft). 
2. 
Abrasion over left frontal region. 
\ 
3. 
Abrasion over Rt. ·Lateral aspect." 
3. She was treated by two doctors. According to one of c 
them, namely, Dr. Mukund, who examined himself as PW3, she 
suffered 10% to 15% of disability whereas according to the 
other doctor, Dr. Shivanand, she suffered 20% to 25% of 
physical disability in her left lower limb. 
D 
An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was claimed by her by way of 
compensatioo in the claim petition before the Motor Accidents 
Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1988 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity 
as 'the Act'). The Tribunal, however, having regard to the 
E 
evidences brought on record, opining that permanent disability 
suffered by her would be 10%, a sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded 
on the said ground. The total amount of compensation 
" 
determined was a sum of Rs.72,785/- details of which are as 
~ 
under: 
F 
"Rs.18,000/- towards pain and sufferings and agony, 
Rs. 12,460 towards diet and attendant charges and 
Rs.323/- were awarded towards medical expenses." 
4. On an appeal preferred thereagainst, the High Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.