V. MEKALA versus M. MALATHI & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 25-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014) 5 S.C.R. 774 
V. MEKALA 
v. 
M. MALATHI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4880 of 2014) 
APRIL 25, 2014 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
c 
s. 166 -
Motor accident -
Just and reasonable 
compensation -
16 years old bright student became 
permanently disabled - Compensation under the head 'loss 
of earning', 'pain and suffering', ' loss of amenities', 'loss of 
enjoyment of marriage' etc. - Held: High Court on the. basis 
0 of medical evidence has rightly arrived at the conclusion that 
appellant has suffered 70% of permanent disablement -
However, the assumption of courts below as regards monthly 
notional income of 6, 0001- is on the lower side - Appellant is 
a brilliant student as she has secured first rank in 10th 
E Standard, she would have had a better future in terms of 
educational career and employment prospects, which are lost 
as a result of her being permanently disabled - Therefore, 
for computation of just and reasonable compensation, under 
the head 'loss of income', her monthly income is to be taken 
as Rs. 10, 0001- and 50% of it to be added towards future 
F prospects of income - Compensation towards pain and 
suffering enhanced to Rs.2,00,0001- -
Compensation under 
head loss of amenity and attendant charges enhanced to 
Rs. 2, 00, 0001- -
Compensation under head of 'loss of 
enjoyment of life and marriage prospects' enhanced to 
G Rs. 3, 00, 0001- -
Rs. 50, 0001- for purchase of crutches and 
Rs.25,0001- towards cost of litigation also awarded-Appellant, 
thus, entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 30, 93, 0001- with 
9% interest from date of application till payment. 
H 
774 
V. MEKALA v. M. MALATHI 
775 
s. 166 - Motor accident claim - Period taken in disposal A 
- Inflation -
Effect of - Held: Having regard to undisputed 
fact that there has been inflation of money since the accident, 
the same has to be taken into account by Tribunal and 
appellate court while awarding compensation to claimant-
appellant as per the principle laid down by Supreme Court. 
B 
. 
The appellant, a 16 years old student of class 11 
holding first rank in her school, met with an accident and 
sustained serious injuries making her permanently 
disabled. The Tribunal granted her compensation of Rs. 
C 
6,46,000 and the High Court enhanced it to 
Rs. 18,22,000/-. The claimant filed the instant appeal 
contending that the High Court erred in taking her 
notional income as Rs. 6,000 per month. It was her case 
that she was a brilliant student and could have got 
professional degree and atleast could have earned a sum 
D 
of Rs. 18,0001- per month. 
The question for consideration before the court was: 
whether the claimant-appellant was entitled to 
enhancement of compensation under the heads, namely, 
loss of earning, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss 
of enjoyment of marriage prospects and the cost of 
crutches? 
Allowing the appeal the court 
HELD: ·1.1. Upon examination of the claimant-
appellant, the Doctor-PW2 has opined that she is not able 
E 
F 
to squat, her disability is ascertained at 70%. PW 2, has 
stated in his evidence that the appellant has sustained 
fracture in both bones in both the legs, the knee folding 
G 
is restricted, and the legs could not be stretched fully and 
the knee bones are mal-united and the appellant cannot 
walk without crutches. The doctor has also stated that 
the appellant is suffering from severe pain while walking 
and further the thickness of the appellant's both legs has 
H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 
A been reduced. The evidence of PW2 has been accepted 
by the Tribunal and concurred by the High Court. The 
High Court on the basis of medical evidence on record 
has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant 
has suffered 70% of permanent disablement. [para 5, 12 
B and 14] [781-E; 785-G-H; 786-A-B; 787-A-B] 
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. 2010 (13) SCR 179 = 
(2011) 1 sec 343 - relied on. 
1.2. However, the assumption of the courts below as 
C regards monthly notional income of 6,000/- is on the 
lower side. The appellant is a brilliant student as she has 
secured first rank in the 10th Standard, she would have 
had a better future in terms of educational career to 
acquire basic or master degrees in the professional 
D courses and she could have got a suitable public or 
private employment, but on account of permanent 
disablement she suffered due to injuries sustained by her 
in the accident
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.