LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/kavin-vs-p-sreemani-devi-ors-20250822/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Kavin vs P. Sreemani Devi & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
22 August 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No(s). 3132-3133 of 2023
Result
Allowed
Bench
N. V. Anjaria, Atul S. Chandurkar
Citation
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1184 : 2025 INSC 1028
Acts & Sections
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1184 : 2025 INSC 1028
Issue for consideration
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was correct in reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the MACT to the Appellant-claimant.
Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Reduction in Compensation by the High Court – Appellant-claimant met with an accident while travelling in an Omni bus – Suffered serious injuries resulting in 100% permanent disability – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 67,83,866 /- towards the compensation under various heads – However, the High Court reduced it to Rs.48,83,866/- – Correctness:

Held: The High Court was not justified in reducing the quantum of compensation that was awarded by the Claims Tribunal – Claimant was 21 years when the accident took place and has suffered 100% disability – Reduction in the amount granted towards future medical expenses is totally unjustified – The amount granted towards future medical expenses deserves to be enhanced to Rs.

15 lacs – An amount granted towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities was set aside by the High Court without assigning any reason whatsoever – The award of an amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities as granted by the Claims Tribunal stands restored – Coming to the grant of compensation towards attendant charges, an amount of Rs. 10 lacs is granted towards attendant charges – The compensation of Rs. 3 lacs granted towards pain and suffering of family members by the Claims is restored – Taking into consideration the 100% disability suffered by the claimant, he would be entitled to amount of Rs. 5 lacs under this head – The findings recorded by the High Court for reducing the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 19 lacs from what was awarded by the Claims Tribunal are unsustainable and thus set aside – Instead, it is held that the claimant would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 82,83,866/- as compensation u/s.166 of the Act of 1988 – The unpaid amount of compensation to be paid to the appellant with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as directed by the Claims Tribunal. [Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]

Keywords: Compensation · Reduction in Compensation · Permanent disability · Pain and suffering · Attendant charges · Compensation · Motor Accident · Loss of enjoyment of life and amenities · Future medical expenses · Not justified in reducing the quantum of compensation

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Atul S. Chandurkar, J. 1. The appellant-claimant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in C.M.A. Nos.902 of 2020 and 677 of 2021 as a result of which the amount of compensation that was awarded to the claimant by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to be reduced. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 03.07.2011, he was travelling in an Omni bus bearing registration No.KA 20A 6604 as a passenger from Coimbatore to Chennai. There were 22 co-passengers travelling with him. At about 10:15 PM, the said bus that was being driven by one Mr.
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →