Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Aravind Kumar, Supreme Court
Self-Employed Persons Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Future Prospects In Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court Reiterates
|Referring to its previous rulings, the Supreme Court asserted that though the Appellant is self-employed, the law is now well settled that such claimants are entitled to future prospects.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that Claimants with self-employed status are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future prospects in motor accident claims.
The Court was considering an Appeal against an order and judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka whereby it partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the Insurer, dismissed the Claimant’s Appeal for enhancement, and modified the quantum of compensation while affirming the finding of 20% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar held, "The monthly income of ₹9,500/-, as fixed by the High Court is accepted by both sides during the course of hearing, is affirmed. Though the appellant is self-employed, the law is now well settled that such claimants are entitled to future prospects. In Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, this Court extended future prospects to self-employed persons. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, this view was reiterated. We therefore add 40% towards future prospects."
The Appellant was represented by Advocate Rohan Thawani, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Puneet Singh Bindra.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant was aged 38 years and engaged in the tailoring business, was driving an Omni car when it collided with lorry allegedly parked in the middle of the flyover without indicators or reflective caution. The Appellant sustained grievous head and bodily injuries, including skull fractures, frontal hemorrhage, optic nerve trauma with resultant visual impairment, and bilateral wrist fractures.
The Tribunal determined the Appellant’s monthly income at ₹8,000/, applied the multiplier of 15 (age 38), assessed disability at 35%, and by adding 50% of his income towards loss of future prospects, awarded a total compensation of ₹17,01,140/- which was reduced to ₹13,60,912/- after applying 20% deduction for contributory negligence. On appeal, the High Court revised the income to ₹9,500/- but omitted future prospects, retained disability at 35%, and awarded ₹16,74,640/-. After applying 20% deduction towards contributory negligence, the net amount awarded was ₹13,44,712/-. Hence, these Appeals.
Reasoning By Court
The only issue for the Court's consideration was whether the High Court erred in excluding future prospects and adopting a lower percentage of disability, thereby resulting in less compensation being awarded.
Referring to its previous rulings, the Court asserted that though the Appellant is self-employed, the law is now well settled that such claimants are entitled to future prospects.
Regarding disability, the Court ruled that the evidence of the Neuropsychologist from NIMHANS, who assessed neuro-behavioural and cognitive disability at 41.77% using validated testing (NIMHANS Battery), was neither rebutted nor doubted. There was no contrary medical evidence.
"The Tribunal and High Court adopted 35% without any reasoning. We therefore take the functional disability at 41.77%", the Court observed.
The Appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Cause Title: Lokesh B vs. Suryanarayana Raju Jaggaraju & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 939)
Appearances:
Appellant- Advocate Rohan Thawani, Advocate-on-Record Pooja Dhar, Advocate S. Ambica
Respondent- Advocate Puneet Singh Bindra, Advocate-on-Record Yasharth Kant, Advocate Sonal Kushwah, Advocate Suryaansh Kishan Razdan
Click here to read/ download Order