Skilled Worker’s Livelihood Cannot Be Reduced to Pittance: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Mason in Motor Accident Case

“Expert Medical Opinion Cannot Be Brushed Aside Without Cogent Reasoning”—Supreme Court delivered a forceful judgment in the case of Suresh Jatav versus Sukhendra Singh & Others, allowing the appeal of a skilled mason who had suffered serious injuries in a road accident. The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran emphatically held that judicial forums must avoid adopting arbitrary estimates when assessing the loss of income and functional disability of workers, especially those engaged in skilled occupations. The Court recalibrated the total compensation to ₹7,19,480/-, a substantial enhancement from the meagre ₹1.62 lakhs awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ₹2.90 lakhs granted by the High Court.

At the core of the judgment was the Supreme Court’s insistence on a realistic appreciation of the economic contribution of skilled labour and a firm reminder that “when expert medical opinion speaks to disability, courts must heed it unless there is compelling counter-evidence.”

Justice K. Vinod Chandran, who authored the judgment, observed at the very outset, “The appellant was the claimant before the Tribunal who claimed 100% functional disability on account of the injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident,” setting the tone for a case of gross under-compensation being rectified.

The appellant, Suresh Jatav, had met with a grievous accident on 12 August 2002 while travelling in an auto-rickshaw when it was struck by a bus driven in a rash and negligent manner. He was hospitalised, underwent surgery, and suffered a compound fracture to his right leg and a fracture to his right hand. As a skilled mason, he claimed compensation based on his inability to continue his work, but the Tribunal and subsequently the High Court awarded him a substantially lower compensation based on assumptions which the Supreme Court found to be unjustified.

The Court firmly rejected the meagre income assessment adopted by the lower courts. Referring to the precedent in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, the Supreme Court remarked, “This Court is of the opinion that the income as claimed by the appellant, a skilled mason, can be accepted,” noting that in similar cases the Court had accepted a notional income of ₹4,500/month for unskilled labourers in 2004, which with logical increments, justified acceptance of ₹6,000/month for a skilled mason in 2002.

The Supreme Court highlighted a fundamental flaw in the Tribunal’s reduction of disability percentage from 35% to 25%. The Court made it clear that, “There should be valid reasoning to go behind the opinion of an expert, especially in the matter of assessment of disability.” The treating doctor had clearly certified a 35% disability and had specifically testified that the appellant could no longer perform tasks essential to his vocation, including sitting, walking, or lifting weights. The Court, therefore, ruled that the functional disability must be restored to 35%.

In an important clarification on the method of calculating just compensation, the Court applied the standard multiplier of 16 (based on the claimant’s age) and included 40% towards future prospects, acknowledging the natural progression of earnings in skilled employment. The Court thus recalculated the compensation for loss of earning capacity to ₹5,64,480, while also enhancing amounts awarded under other heads such as medical expenses, special diet, loss of income during treatment, and pain and suffering.

Justice Chandran remarked, “The evidence of the doctor would indicate that he could not have continued his chosen vocation,” making it clear that the judicial duty extended to ensuring adequate compensation for the actual loss suffered.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the insurance company to pay the enhanced compensation within two months from the date of the judgment, with the amount to be transferred directly into the bank account of the appellant. The Court stated in no uncertain terms, “The above-mentioned amounts shall be paid, after deducting the amount which has already been paid with interest as directed by the Tribunal, running from the date of filing the claim petition, within a period of two months.”

The judgment serves as a powerful reaffirmation of the rights of injured workmen and underscores the Court’s commitment to protecting the dignity of labour.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2025