S. MANICKAM versus METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORP. LTD.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 01-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 351 
S. MANICKAM 
v. 
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORP. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.4816-4817 of 2013) 
JULY 1, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Accident - Compensation -
Determination of - "Just compensation" - Held: No precise c 
formula to determine the quantum of compensation -
Concept of "just compensation" suggests application of fair 
and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the 
part of the tribunals and the courts - Law values life and limb 
in a free country in generous scales - Adjudicating authority D 
to take note of the sufferings of the injured person which would 
include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy 
the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the 
injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or 
could have earned. 
E 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Accident - Compensation -
Grant of- Under both the heads viz., loss of earning/earning 
capacity as well as permanent disability - Propriety - Victim 
was 45 year old proprietor of a furniture mart - He had 
sustained 85% permanent disability by way of amputation of F 
his right leg below the knee - Held: Considering the age and 
avocation of the appellant and the fact that he cannot do the 
same work as he was doing prior to the accident due to 
amputation of his right leg, Tribunal fully justified in fixing a 
sum of Rs. 1 /akh towards 85% permanent disability -High G 
Court erred in setting aside the award of Rs. 1 Lakh under the 
head 'permanent disability' on the ground that substantial 
amount had been fixed under the head 'loss of earning' and 
'loss of earning capacity'. 
351 
H 
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Accident - Compensation -
Grant of - Under the head 'loss of earning/earning capacity' 
- Appropriate multiplier - Victim was 45 year old proprietor 
of a furniture mart - He sustained 85% permanent disability 
by way of amputation of his right leg below the knee - High 
B 
Court reduced the multiplier from 13 to 10 - Propriety- Held: 
High Court, while computing the loss of earning capacity, 
... 
without any acceptable reason, applied the multiplier of 10 -
Though multiplier method cannot be mechanically applied to 
ascertain the future loss of income or earning power, 
c depending on various factors such as nature and extent of 
disablement, avocation of the injured whether it would affect 
his or her employment or earning power, the loss of income 
or earnings may be ascertained by applying the same as 
provided under the second Schedule to the Act - Inasmuch 
0 
as in the case on hand, on the date of the incident, the age 
of the claimant was 45 years, proper multiplier in terms of the 
second Schedule is 13 which was rightly applied by the 
Tribunal. 
The appellant was the proprietor of a Furniture Mart 
E and 15 persons were working under him. In view of an 
accident, he sustained 85% permanent disability by way 
of amputation of his right leg below the knee. The 
appellant was aged about 45 years at the time of the 
accident. 
F 
The Tribunal determined the income of appellant as 
Rs. 8,0001- per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 
9,42,822/- as compensation with interest@ 12% p.a .. The 
High Court disallowed claim under the head permanent 
G disability and also reduced the multiplier as provided in 
the second Schedule to the Act from 13, as adopted by 
the Tribunal, to 10. The total compensation amount was 
reduced to Rs.6,72,822/-
The present appeals were preferred by the victim/ 
H claimant for enhancement of the compensation, wherein 
S. MANICKAM v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT 
353 
CORP. LTD. 
question arose for consideration as to whether A 
compensation in a motor vehicle accident case is payable 
to a claimant for both heads, viz., loss of earning/earning 
capacity as well as permanent disability. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 
1. 
In 
matters of determination of 
compensation, particularly, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 
both the tribunals and the High Courts are statutorily 
charged with a responsibility of fixing a "just 
compensation". Determination of "just compensation" C 
cannot be equated to a bonanza. On the other hand, the 
concept of "just compensation" suggests application of 
fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach 
on the part of the tribunals and the courts. The 
determination of quantum in motor accidents cases and D 
compen

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