In a significant motor accident ruling that drew long arguments inside Courtroom No. at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra enhanced compensation for a 22-year-old former bus driver whose right hand was amputated after a 2009 collision. The judges, after patiently hearing both sides, said the earlier assessment of disability was “too narrow” and failed to reflect the reality of a young man losing his livelihood.
Background
The case stems from a tragic early-morning crash on 25 November 2009. Sreejith, then a school bus driver, was driving past the Ayoor Petrol Pump when a private bus - described in court as the “offending vehicle” - rammed into his school bus head-on. The accident left him with severe injuries, culminating in the amputation of his right hand.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
After months of treatment in Thiruvananthapuram hospitals, he approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Punalur, seeking ₹10 lakh in compensation. The Tribunal in 2016 granted ₹9,04,940, using a notional monthly income of ₹5,000 and considering his disability at 60%. The Kerala High Court later enhanced the amount to ₹15,64,520, raising his notional income to ₹7,000 and awarding additional sums toward amenities and loss of earning. But even that did not fully satisfy the appellant, who then knocked on the Supreme Court’s doors.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the bench repeatedly questioned whether someone who depended entirely on physical labour could be treated as only 60% disabled.
“The bench observed, ‘Once the right hand of a bus driver is amputated, the question of earning the same way simply does not arise. The functional disability is 100%. The man cannot drive; he cannot support himself without assistance.’”
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
The Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment of notional income at ₹7,000 per month, calling it “reasonable” for 2009 considering minimum wages. But it firmly disagreed with the disability percentage granted earlier.
The judges noted that Sreejith now remains “entirely dependent on others for subsistence,” making a mere mathematical disability figure unrepresentative of the real blow to his livelihood. They also held he deserved higher compensation under several heads - including pain and suffering, future medical needs, attendant charges, and special diet - while applying the 40% future prospects increase recognised in earlier landmark precedents.
Decision
After recalculating all components, the Supreme Court fixed the total compensation at ₹41,13,138, almost triple the High Court’s award and more than four times the MACT’s amount. The Court applied the multiplier of 18, accepted 100% functional disability, and made sizeable additions under medical expenses, pain and suffering, and attendant charges.
Read also: Gujarat High Court Rejects State’s Appeal, Says Temple-Visit Quarrel Cannot Be Treated as Cruelty
Calling it an amount “in accordance with law,” the bench modified both the MACT and High Court decisions. It further directed that the compensation be directly transferred to the claimant’s bank account within four weeks, with interest as already directed by the High Court. The appellant’s counsel has been instructed to immediately share bank details with the insurance company’s lawyer. With that, the Court disposed of all pending applications and closed the matter.
Case Title: Sreejith vs. Abdul Rasheed & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7191 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6950 of 2023)
Case Type: Civil Appeal – Motor Accident Compensation
Decision Date: 6 May 2025