Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Contract Act, 1872 — Section 2(d) — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Compensation — Notional Income Future Prospects — Multiplier — Contributory Negligence — Attendant Charges — Future Medical Expenses — Loss of Marital Prospects — Discomfort — Extra Nourishment — Medical Bills — Motor Accident — Amputation — Functional Disability — In a motor accident case involving a young engineering student who suffered amputation of his leg due to the negligence of multiple parties, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation by reassessing the notional income, elaborating on future prospects, applying an appropriate multiplier, and reinstating the original attendant charges awarded by the Tribunal, deeming the High Court’s reduction unjustified

2025 INSC 905

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

S. MOHAMMED HAKKIM

Vs.

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No(s)….of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 28062-63 of 2023]

Decided on : 29-07-2025

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Contract Act, 1872 — Section 2(d) — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Compensation — Notional Income Future Prospects — Multiplier — Contributory Negligence — Attendant Charges — Future Medical Expenses — Loss of Marital Prospects — Discomfort — Extra Nourishment — Medical Bills — Motor Accident — Amputation — Functional Disability — In a motor accident case involving a young engineering student who suffered amputation of his leg due to the negligence of multiple parties, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation by reassessing the notional income, elaborating on future prospects, applying an appropriate multiplier, and reinstating the original attendant charges awarded by the Tribunal, deeming the High Court’s reduction unjustified — The Court also increased the compensation for loss of marital prospects, while affirming other heads — The total compensation was calculated after deducting the appellant’s contributory negligence of 20%. The insurers of the offending vehicles were directed to pay the compensation. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor Accident — Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Sudden Braking — Highway Driving — Warning Signals — The Supreme Court held that sudden braking on a highway without any warning signal is a negligent act, as drivers have a responsibility to provide adequate warning to vehicles following them — The Court also affirmed that failing to maintain a sufficient distance from the vehicle ahead constitutes contributory negligence. (Para 6)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Notional Income of Student — Future Prospects — Campus Interviews — Minimum Wages — The Supreme Court held that the notional income of a student pursuing a degree in Engineering from a premier institute should not be taken at the minimum wages for an unskilled worker — Noting that students recruited through campus interviews are offered at least Rs. 20,000/- per month, the Court determined this as a reasonable basis for calculating future prospects in similar cases. (Paras 8, 9)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Attendant Charges — Amputation — Lifetime Care — The Supreme Court reinstated the attendant charges awarded by the Tribunal, stating that when a person loses a limb so severely that it requires amputation from the waist downwards, the need for lifelong assistance with daily routines justifies substantial attendant charges, and a reduction without cogent reasons is unwarranted. (Para 10)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Loss of Marital Prospects — Young Victim — The Supreme Court increased compensation for loss of marital prospects for a young victim of a motor accident, recognizing the profound impact of such an accident on their future marital life. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. – 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. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

4. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

5. First on the question of contributory negligence of the appellant and negligence on the part of the drivers of the other two vehicles involved in the accident. The Tribunal, as well as the High Court, have affirmed that the accident occurred due to the sudden stoppage of the car. However, it was the view of the Tribunal that if the bus had not been involved in the accident, the appellant would have suffered normal injuries, and it was mainly the negligence of the bus driver that led to the amputation of the appellant’s leg. The Tribunal also relied on Rule 23[1] of the Road Regulation Rules 1989 and put contributory negligence of 20% on the appellant for not maintaining a sufficient distance from the car. The Tribunal had exonerated the car driver and determined the negligence of the appellant and the bus driver in the ratio of 20:80. In appeal, the High Court has rightly held that since the genesis of the accident was the sudden braking of the car, the car driver should also be made liable. The High Court held the car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of 40% and 30% respectively; while the appellant was made liable for 30% contributory negligence.

6. The car insurer has taken the stand that the appellant had hit the moving car from behind and thus, car driver is not liable. On the other hand, the car driver has admitted in his evidence that he had suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had a vomiting sensation. In our view, the 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. But at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver. The explanation given by the car driver for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway is not a reasonable explanation from any angle. 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. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the car driver had taken any such precaution. Both Tribunal as well as the High Court have noted that the bus driver was also negligent. After considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the appellant is liable for contributory negligence but only to the extent of 20% whereas the car driver and bus driver are liable for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30% respectively.

7. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the age of the appellant at the time of the accident was 20 years, and he was studying in the 3rd year of Engineering College, Coimbatore. It is also not disputed that the appellant had lost his left leg due to the accident and thus, suffers from a 100% functional disability. While determining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had taken Rs. 15,000/- as the appellant’s monthly notional income and the same was affirmed by the High Court. However, the learned counsel of the appellant would contend that the appellant’s notional income ought to have been taken as Rs.25,000/- per month.

8. In the present case, at the time of the accident, the appellant was a 3rd year engineering student who could have had a bright future. While dealing with a case of an accident in which an engineering student had lost one leg, this Court in Navjot Singh vs. Harpreet Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1562 had noted that:

9. In the above case, this Court was dealing with a case of an accident that occurred in the year 2013. Although considering the facts of that case, this Court had taken the income of the claimant therein as Rs. 10,000/- per month, it was noted that students, like the appellant in the present case, would be at least earning the minimum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thus, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the notional income of the appellant were taken as Rs. 20,000/-. According to the guidelines in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 as upheld in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier would be taken as 18, and future prospects would be 40%. Therefore, the loss of income would be as follows:

10. The High Court has rightly granted Rs.5,00,000/- for the future medical expenses but erred in reducing the attendant charges from Rs. 18 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs. In the present case, by taking charges of an attendant as Rs.6,000/- per month for 25 years, the Tribunal calculated the attendant charges as Rs. 18 lacs. While reducing it to Rs.5 lacs, the High Court has not given any cogent reasons and merely noted that fixing Rs.18 lacs as attendant charges is exorbitant and unreasonable. We are unable to understand how the attendant charges of Rs.18 lacs fixed by the Tribunal are unreasonable. The appellant has lost his entire left leg, which was amputated from waist downwards, which means that he would require assistance throughout his life to perform the basic daily routine. Thus, we hold that the attendant charges as fixed by the Tribunal were justified.

11. There is one more aspect which has attracted our attention. Under the head of loss of marital prospects, Tribunal had granted Rs. 2.5 lacs to the appellant and the same has been affirmed by the High Court. However, in our view, it is not sufficient, and in the interest of justice, it shall be increased to Rs. 5 lacs. As far as the High Court’s decision to grant Rs. 5 lacs for the future medical expenses is concerned, we do not think it requires any interference. For all other heads, we agree with the concurrent findings and thus, the determination of the compensation would be as follows:

12. As stated above, the appellant is liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 20% and thus, compensation payable to the appellant is Rs. 91,39,253/- (Rs.1,14,24,066 – 20% i.e. Rs.22,84,813) along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Since both the offending vehicles (car as well as the bus) were insured at the time of the accident, the liability for the negligence of the car driver and bus driver shall be borne by them i.e., respondent no.3 to the extent of 50% and respondent no.1 to the extent of 30%, respectively. The amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant within four weeks from the date of this order.

13. We dispose of these appeals in the above terms.

14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.