Allowed

Kanubhai Gokalbhai Bariya v. Jaydipsinh Gopalsinh Parekhiya

Supreme Court7 May 20252025 INSC 6412025 INSC 641

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition and enhanced compensation for injury due to a motor accident. The Court determined an 80% functional disability, calculated loss of future income based on proved income for 140 months with 120% increase, and awarded specific amounts for pain and suffering and attendant charges, resulting in a total compensation of Rs. 28,79,112.72 to be apportio

What did the court decide?

Total compensation awarded at Rs. 28,79,112.72, to be apportioned 20:80 between the bike and bus insurers, payable with 9% interest.

Kanubhai Gokalbhai Bariya versus Jaydipsinh… — Motor Accident Claims | Supreme Court (2025)

¶1

2025 INSC 641

¶2

Non-Reportable

¶3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2025) (@Diary No. 20941 OF 2023)

¶5

KANUBHAI GOKALBHAI BARIYA …APPELLANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

JAYDIPSINH GOPALSINH PAREKHIYA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

¶8

J U D G M E N T

¶9

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶10

1. Leave granted.

¶11

2. The appellant while travelling pillion in a bike met

¶12

with an accident when a bus rammed into the bike, killing

¶13

the driver of the bike and seriously injuring the appellant. The right leg of the appellant was amputated, below the knee and the right hand was also deformed from the injuries sustained. The appellant before the

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.05.07 19:32:06 IST Reason:

¶15

Tribunal sought a total compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-, asserting a salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month as a

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023

¶18

watchman, which employment he was not able to continue after the accident, due to the amputation.

¶19

3. The Tribunal found contributory negligence on the

¶20

bike driver which was apportioned @ 20% while the bus driver was found to be more negligent @ 80%. The Tribunal found that the income of the injured as per the documents produced clearly indicated Rs.9,918/- which was adopted for the purpose of deciding the loss of income which also was of a permanent nature due to the permanent physical disability suffered. The Tribunal relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar¹ , to find 55% functional disability, for payment of Rs. 50,000/- and the income loss for 2 months was assessed at Rs. 20,000/. The medical bills coming to a total of Rs. 5,17,850/- was allowed with an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- for special diet. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal came to Rs.16,34,650/- with interest @ 9% per annum. The Tribunal directed the insurer of the bike and

¶21

1 (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023

¶24

bus to compensate the petitioner respectively in a ratio

¶25

of 20:80.

¶26

4. The High Court in the appeal granted 40% increase in the income as has been held in Pranay Sethi² . Actual loss of income was calculated for 6 months with the future prospects included. According to us, that may not be correct since 40% increase is to take in the future prospects of the injured and as on the date of accident when the income is proved, the loss of income should be based on the income proved before the Tribunal. We are conscious of the fact that the Insurance Company is not before us but since just compensation is to be paid, we reduce the same to Rs. 60,000/- for 6 months.

¶27

5. As far as the loss of future income is concerned, the Tribunal and the High Court adopted 55% as the disability. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that he was working as a watchman and considering the amputation, his disability

¶28

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023

¶31

would be 100%. The appellant’s counsel would also seek for increase in the other heads including that for pain and suffering.

¶32

6. Raj Kumar¹ found that the disability assessed for determining compensation should be the functional disability. In the present case the physical disability of the appellant was proved by the evidence of a doctor who examined him and assessed his physical disability. The certificate proved by the doctor clearly indicated 80% disability with respect to his amputated leg and 10% disability insofar as the deformed right hand. The doctor had clearly deposed that the stump of the right leg was also deformed and there was no possibility of using an artificial limb. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the disability of the appellant would be 80% only considering the fact that the appellant could still move on crutches. The appellant had been in hospital for one and a half months and due to the amputation, would have definitely suffered bed rest for some time in the

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023

¶35

context of which the High Court has granted 6 months loss of income though the loss of income has been reduced by us. We are of the opinion that the pain and suffering of the appellant has to be increased along with an increase for special diet and attendant charges. The compensation for pain and suffering would be Rs. 1,00,000/- and the attendant charges including special diet for the period when the appellant was hospitalized; which the High Court determined as 6 months, would be @ Rs. 15,000/- per month, thus totalling to Rs. 1,90,000/-.

¶36

Hence the total compensation is as computed below:

¶37

S. No.	Heads of claim	Amount
1.	Loss of income Rs. 9,818/- x 140% x 12 x 16 x 80%.	Rs. 21,11,262.72/-
2.	Attendant charges and special diet for 6 months @ Rs. 15,000/-.	Rs. 90,000/-
3.	Medical Bills.	Rs. 5,17,850/-
4.	Pain and suffering.	Rs. 1,00,000/-
5.	Loss of income due to bed- rest for 6 months.	Rs. 60,000
	Total compensation	Rs. 28,79,112.72/-

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023

¶40

7. The above amount shall be apportioned in the ratio

¶41

of 20:80 as against the insurer of the bike and the bus. The awarded amounts shall be paid within a period of two months from today with interest @ 9% per annum as ordered by the Tribunal and whatever amounts have already been paid shall be deducted. The appellant shall

¶42

provide the bank account details to the Insurance Companies who shall transfer the amount online within the period specified hereinabove.

¶43

8. The Appeal stands allowed with the above directions.

¶44

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

¶45

……………..……………, J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

¶46

……………..……………, J. [K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

¶47

NEW DELHI; MAY 07, 2025.

¶48

Page 6 of 6

¶49

CA @ SLP(C) Diary No. 20941 of 2023

Kanubhai Gokalbhai Bariya v. Jaydipsinh Gopalsinh Parekhiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanubhai Gokalbhai Bariya v. Jaydipsinh Gopalsinh Parekhiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Sakthi versus the Government of Tamil Nadu

Keshav versus the State of Maharashtra

Meera Bai versus Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Sunil Kumar Khushwaha versus Katragadda Satyanarayana

Disha Kapoor versus State of Uttar Pradesh

M. Seetharama @ Seetharama Gowda versus the Manager Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.