YADAVA KUMAR versus THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANOTHER

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 746 · Decided: 31-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 746 
YADAVA KUMAR 
v. 
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE 
CO. LTD. & ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 7223 of 2010) 
AUGUST 31, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
ss. 163A and 5 - Disability in non-fatal accidents -
Calculation of compensation - Painter sustained injuries in 
a road accident - Compensation of Rs.52,0001- awarded by 
tribunal - High Court enhanced it to Rs. 72,0001- - On appeal, 
0 held: High Court while granting compensation refused to 
award any amount towards loss of future earning - Doctor 
opined that claimant svffered disability of 33% of right upper 
limb, 21% of left upper limb and 20% total disability of the 
whole body - Claimant is bound to suffer loss in earning 
E capacity as a painter and has to earn his livelihood by virtue 
of physical work -
In order to do complete justice, 
compensation assessed - Multiplier of 17 applied - Thus, 
claimant awarded two lakh rupees as compensation with 8% 
interest - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142. 
F 
'Just compensation' - Concept of 
'Compensation' and 'damage' - Distinction between. 
The appellant-painter, aged 30 years sustained 
several injuries in a road accident. He was hit by a tempo. 
G The appellant filed a claim petition. PW-2, Orthopaedic 
Surgeon, opined that the appellant suffered a disability 
of 33% of right upper limb and 21% of left upper limb and 
20% total disability of the whole body and as a result he 
could not work as a painter nor could he do any other 
H 
746 
YADAVA KUMAR v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL 
747 
INSURANCE 
manual work. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 
A 
52,000/-. The High Court enhanced the cotnpensation to 
Rs.72,000/-. Both the tribunal and the High Court did not 
incorporate any thing by way of compensation in the 
category of 'loss of future earnings'. Therefore, the 
appellant filed the instant appeal claiming higher B 
compensation. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.The Second Schedule under Section 163A 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives a structured C 
formula for the calculation of compensation in accident 
cases. Section 5 of the Schedule deals with disability in 
non-fatal accidents. The multiplier method is to be applied 
in cases of injuries also. [Paras 10 and 11) [752-E-F; 753-
E] 
D 
2.1 In the instant case, the appellant sustained a 
fracture of distal end of left radius with fracture of left 
ulnar styloid process and fracture distal end of right 
radius with mild diastosis and soft tissues swelling 
E 
around wrist joint. The doctor assessed the disability at 
33% in respect of the right upper limb and 21% towards 
left upper limb and 20% in respect of the whole body, 
which prevented the appellant from painting in view of 
multiple injuries sustained by him. The High Court while 
granting compensation refused to award any amount 
towards loss of future earning, inter-alia, on the ground 
that the appellant did not produce an iota of document 
to substantiate his stand. This view of the High Court 
cannot be accepted. [Paras 14, 15 and 16) [754-A-D] 
2.2 While assessing compensation in accident cases, 
the High Court or the tribunal must take a reasonably 
compassionate view of things. It cannot be disputed that 
the appellant being a painter has to earn his livelihood 
F 
G 
by virtue of physical work. The nature of injuries which 
H 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A he admittedly suffered, and about which the evidence of 
PW-2 is quite adequate, amply demonstrates that 
carrying those injuries he is bound to suffer loss of 
earning capacity as a painter and a consequential loss 
of income is the natural outcome. (Para 17] [754-E-F] 
B 
2.3 In matters of determination of compensation both 
the tribunal and the court are statutorily charged with a 
responsibility of fixing a 'just compensation': It is 
obviously true that determination of a just compensation 
cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time, the 
C concept of 'just compensation' obviously suggests 
application of fair and equitable principles and a 
reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and 
courts. This reasonableness on the part of the tribunal 
and the court must be on a large peripheral field. Both 
D the courts and tribunals in the matter of this exercise 
should be guided by principles of good conscience so 
that the ultimate results become just and equitable. [Para 
18] [754-G-H] (755-A

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