LexS. MOHAMMED HAKKIM versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1736 : 2025 INSC 905 S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 9897-9898 of 2025) 29 July 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant- engineering student in a motor accident, resulting in amputation of his leg and 100% functional disability. Headnotes† Motor accident – Compensation claim – Reduction by High Court – Challenge to – Appellant-20 year old engineering student was riding a motorcycle, car ahead of him applied the brakes suddenly, the appellant’s motorcycle dashed into the car, the appellant fell down on the road and bus coming from behind ran over the appellant, resulting in amputation of his leg and 100% functional disability – Tribunal calculated compensation as Rs.91,62,066/-, however, reduced 20% on account of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and awarded Rs.73,29,653/- – High Court reduced the compensation awarded to Rs.58,53,447/-, fixing liability of car driver, bus driver and the appellant as 40%, 30% and 30% respectively – Correctness: Held: Concurrent finding that the appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle without a valid license is correct – However, the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver – Explanation given by the car driver for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway not a reasonable explanation – On a highway, high speed of vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road – Nothing on record to suggest that the car * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1737 S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. driver had taken any such precaution – Thus, the appellant liable for contributory negligence but only to the extent of 20% whereas the car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30% respectively – In the interest of justice, the notional income of the appellant taken as Rs.20,000/-; multiplier as 18, and future prospects at 40%, thus, the loss of income would be Rs.60,48,000/- – Attendant charges of Rs 18 lacs as fixed by the tribunal, and Rs. 5 lacs for the future medical expenses as granted by the High Court justified – For loss of marital prospects, amount increased to Rs.5 lacs – For all other heads, the concurrent findings upheld – Since, the appellant liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 20%, compensation of Rs.91,39,253/- payable to the appellant along with the interest @ 7.5% pa from the date of filing of the claim petition. [Paras 6-12] Case Law Cited Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1562; Sarla Verma v. DTC [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 – referred to. List of Acts Road Regulation Rules 1989. List of Keywords Compensation; Engineering student; Amputation of leg in a motor accident; Contributory negligence; Fixing liability of car driver, bus driver; Driving motorcycle without valid license; Sudden brakes applied by car driver; Highway; High speed vehicle; Functional disability; Notional income; Multiplier; Future prospects; Loss of income; Attendant charges; Future medical expenses; Loss of marital prospects. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 9897-9898 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 2932 of 2021 in CROBJ No. 103 of 2021 1738 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Gokulakrisnan, Sr. Advs., Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Manoj Kumar.a, Vishal Sinha. Advs. for the Respondents: Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Mrs. Shantha Devi Raman, Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Tanisha Gopal. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 11.11.2022, whereby the Madras High Court reduced the compensation awarded to the appellant in a motor accident case from Rs. 73,29,653/-to Rs.58,53,447/-. 3.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.