RAJ KUMAR versus AJAY KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 179 · Decided: 18-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 22 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 179 
RAJ KUMAR 
v. 
AJAY KUMAR & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8981 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 18, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H. L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
A 
B 
ss. 163-A, 166, 168 and 169 - Non-fatal motor accident c 
- Partial permanent disability - Compensation towards loss 
of future earnings - Principles enumerated - Illustrations 
given - Securing of expert medical evidence - Guidelines 
laid down - HELD: Instead of remanding the case after two 
decades, on facts and circumstances of the case, in order to 
D 
do complete justice, permanent functional disability of the 
claimant and loss of future earning capacity assessed -
Monthly income of claimant re-assessed - In calculating 
compensation towards loss of future earnings due to disability, 
there is no need to deduct one-third or any other percentage 
from the assessed income towards the personal and living 
expenses - Age of claimant being 25 years, multiplier of 18 
applied - Compensation towards loss of future earning and 
loss of earnings during the period of treatment enhanced 
accordingly - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, 
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - s.2(1) 
E 
F 
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Evidence - Expert 
medical evidence - Securing of - Constitution of India, 1950 
- Articles 136 and 142. 
A roadside cheese vendor, aged about 25 years, 
G 
sustained fracture of both bones of left leg as also of left 
radius, in a motor accident. The Motor Accident Claims 
Tribunal, awarded compensation on various heads. As 
regards com'pensation towards loss of future earnings, 
179 
H 
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
the .Tribunal relying on the medical certificate indicating 
45% disability held the loss of future earnings as 45%. 
Though the claimant asserted that his monthly income 
was Rs. 3000/-, the Tribunal, in the absence of any 
documentary evidence in this regard, took the minimum 
B 
wage, viz. R.891/- as the monthly income of the claimant, 
rounded it off to Rs. 900/-and deducted one-third 
therefrom towards personal and living expenses. Taking 
the loss of future earnings as 45% of Rs. 600/- to be Rs. 
270/- or Rs. 3,240/- per annum, and applying a multiplier 
C 
of 17, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 55,080/- towards the loss 
of future earnings. The appeal filed by the claimant for 
enhancement of compensation was dismissed by the 
High Court. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
D 
appellant that (i) the assessment of monthly income at Rs. 
900/- was very low and (ii) deduction of one-third of the 
income towards personal and living expenses while 
assessing the future loss of earning was not warranted. 
E 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 
F 
1. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 
makes it clear that the award must be just, which means 
that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully 
and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior 
to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to 
make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done 
as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and 
G equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to 
assess the damages objectively and exclude from 
consideration any speculation or fancy, though some 
conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and 
its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to 
H be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the 
RAJ KUMAR v. AJAY KUMAR & ANR. 
181 
loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This 
A 
means that he is to be compensated for his inability to 
lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities 
which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his 
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have 
earned. [para 4] [188-F-H; 189-A] 
B 
C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair 1970 (2) 
SCR 688 =AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest 
Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCR 75 =1995 (1) SCC 551 -
relied on. 
Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 - referred to. 
Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent 
disability: 
c 
2.1 Permanent disability can be either partial or total. 
0 
Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability 
to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he 
could perform before the accident, though he is able to 
perform some of them and is still able to engage in some 
gainful activity. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.