Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: June 23, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant M. Paramesh vs. Respondent VRL Logistics Ltd and an unnamed insurance company.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil Appeal No. 8708 of 2026 arising from S.L.P. (Civil) No. 35337 of 2025, challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and the subsequent modification by the Madras High Court.
  • Accident Details: On 18‑04‑2017, at ~6:50 p.m., the appellant was riding a bicycle on the left side of NH‑7 near Anaipalayam when a lorry (Reg. No. KA‑25‑B‑5035) struck him rashly, causing grievous injuries to head, jaw, eye and right leg, leading to above‑knee amputation of the right leg.
  • Criminal Proceedings: FIR No. 279 of 2017 registered at Rasipuram Police Station under IPC §§ 279 and 338 against the lorry driver; the driver was held negligent, liability placed on the vehicle owner and insurer.
  • Compensation Claim: Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant claimed Rs 25,00,000, asserting a monthly earning of approx. Rs 20,000 as a mason and a permanent disability of 70% (as per medical certificate).
  • Tribunal Award (29‑11‑2019): Rs 10,84,330 with 7.5% p.a. interest, based on a monthly income of Rs 6,000, multiplier 17, and disability 70%.
  • High Court Modification (29‑11‑2023): Enhanced monthly income to Rs 12,000, added 40% for future prospects, and increased certain heads (attendant charges, loss of amenities, future medical expenses) resulting in a revised total of Rs 23,86,320.
  • Appellant’s Further Plea: Sought additional enhancement, arguing mis‑calculations and inadequate consideration of functional disability.

Supreme Court Findings & Modifications

1. Income Assessment: The Court upheld the High Court’s monthly income of Rs 12,000, finding no documentary proof for the appellant’s claim of Rs 20,000.

2. Functional Disability: The Court held that the physical disability of 70% must be converted to a functional disability of 100% because the amputation of the right leg above the knee eliminates the appellant’s ability to work as a mason, his sole avocation.

3. Loss of Income Re‑calculation: Using Rs 12,000 monthly income, multiplier 17, and functional disability 100% → Loss of Income = Rs 12,000 × 12 × 17 × 100% = Rs 24,48,000.

4. Future Prospects: Applied 40% on the revised loss of income → Future Prospects = 40% × Rs 24,48,000 = Rs 9,79,200 (the Court presented the figure as Rs 34,27,200 inclusive of the base loss of income).

5. Other Heads: Retained High Court amounts for pain & suffering (Rs 1,00,000), transportation (Rs 25,000), nutrition (Rs 10,000), clothing & ornaments (Rs 5,000), medical expenses (Rs 1,57,530), attendant charges (Rs 30,000), loss of amenities (Rs 75,000).

6. Future Medical Expenses – Artificial Limb: Enhanced from Rs 1,00,000 to Rs 2,00,000 to cover periodic replacement and maintenance.

7. Total Compensation: Aggregating all heads, the Court arrived at a total revised compensation of Rs 40,29,730 (including interest at 7.5% p.a. as awarded by the High Court).

8. Interest: The enhanced amount shall attract the same 7.5% per annum interest as earlier awarded.

9. Direction to Respondent‑2 (Insurance Company): Ordered to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks from the date of this judgment; upon deposit, the appellant may withdraw the sum as per law.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is partly allowed; the High Court’s award is modified to reflect a functional disability of 100% and the recalculated compensation of Rs 40,29,730.
  • The insurer must comply with the six‑week deposit directive; interest continues at 7.5% p.a.

Topics: Compensation Award; Functional Disability Assessment; Supreme Court Judgment