SRI B.T. KRISHNAPPA versus THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 30-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 5 S.C.R. 657 
SRI B.T. KRISHNAPPA 
v. 
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE 
CO~PANY LTD. AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 4027 of 2010) 
APRIL 30, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 - Compensation -
Future loss of earning - Claimant aged 50 years working as 
C 
mason - In motor accident, suffered multiple fractures 
resulting in shortening of rjght leg by 3.5 ems - Tribunal 
assessed disability at 20% and awarded compensation of 
Rs.1.55 lacs -
High Court enhanced compensation by 
Rs. 34000 - On appeal, held: Appel/ant had suffered an 
D 
irreversible damage to his right leg posing difficulties for him 
in carrying out his avocation as a mason - High Court while 
making observation that the Tribunal's compensation under 
the heads "loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss 
of earnings during laid up period" was on the lower side, did 
E 
not make its own assessment under these heads - These 
areas needed proper introspection and a more sensitive 
approach as the appellant represented weaker section of the 
community - Matter remitted to High Court for consideration 
afresh. 
F 
The appellant aged 50 years was working as a 
mason. On the fateful day, while he was crossing the 
road, a motorcycle hit him resulting in bone fractures, 
head and other injuries all over the body. He was 
hospitalized for about 2 weeks and was under medical 
G 
treatment for about 6 months after discharge from 
hospital. MACT awarded him a compensation of Rs.1.55 
lacs. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, 
appellant filed appeal before High Court. High Court 
657 
H 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 
A enhanced the compensation only by Rs.34,000/-. Hence 
the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court did no consider the 
appellant's case properly. It accepted the Tribunal's 
assessment of the body disability at 20% and observed 
that the Tribunal has paid compensation under the heads 
"loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss of 
c earnings during laid up period" on the lower side. 
However, it awarded an additional compensation only for 
future medical expenditures and did not deal with the 
aspect of future loss of earnings at all, which was not a 
correct approach. The incapacity or disability to earn 
0 livelihood should be viewed not only in praesenti but in 
futuro on reasonable expectancies and taking into 
account ~eprival of earnings of a conceivable period. 
[Paras 9, 1 O] [662-C-F] 
Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh and others (1990) 3 
E sec 723, relied on. 
1.2. As per the evidence of PW-2, the doctor who 
supervised the appellant's injuries and administered 
treatment in the Hospital, it was proved that the appellant 
F sustained compound fractures in the tibia and fibula bone 
of the right leg. He also suffered bruises and cuts on his 
face and some parts of the body. He was operated. Even 
after his discharge, he was advised follow up treatments 
and physiotherapy and also exercise for better mqvement 
G of his leg. In his affidavit before the Tribunal, PW2 stated 
that the appellant's right leg was shortened as a result 
of which he had to walk with a limp. The appellant was 
advised to use footwear with a raised sole and to 
continue with the exercises. The Tribunal noted that the 
shortening of the leg was by 3.5 ems. The Tribunal 
H however, in accepting the disability of the appellant at 
SRI B.T. KRISHNAPPA v. D.M., UNITED INSURANCE 659 
CO. LTD. 
48%, refused to accept the assessment of the doctor that 
A 
the future loss of earning would also be at 48%. It opined 
that construction work involves many people and the 
doctor was not right in concluding that due to the 
disability on the right leg, the appellant would not be able 
to do construction work. The future loss of earning was 
B 
assessed at a much lesser 20%. Since there was no 
specific evidence regarding his income, the multiplier 
method was used for assessing the compensation. 
[Paras 11-14] [662-F-H; 663-A-C; 663-E-G] 
1.3. Although the Tribunal concluded by holding that C 
the assessment of future loss of earnings should 'be 
made only at 20%, the High Court, while making the 
observation that the Tribunal's compensation ·under the 
heads "loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss 
of earnings during laid up period" was on the lower side, 
D 
should have given reasons and made its 

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