LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/s-mohammed-hakkim-vs-national-insurance-co-ltd-ors-20250729/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

S. Mohammed Hakkim vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
29 July 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No(s). 9897-9898 of 2025
Result
Disposed
Bench
Sudhanshu Dhulia, Aravind Kumar
Citation
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1736 : 2025 INSC 905
Acts & Sections
Road Regulation Rules 1989
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1736 : 2025 INSC 905
Issue for consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court reducing the compensation awarded to the appellantengineering student in a motor accident, resulting in amputation of his leg and 100% functional disability.
Headnote

Motor accident – Compensation claim – Reduction by High Court – Challenge to – Appellant-20 year old engineering student was riding a motorcycle, car ahead of him applied the brakes suddenly, the appellant’s motorcycle dashed into the car, the appellant fell down on the road and bus coming from behind ran over the appellant, resulting in amputation of his leg and 100% functional disability – Tribunal calculated compensation as Rs.91,62,066/-, however, reduced 20% on account of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and awarded Rs.73,29,653/- – High Court reduced the compensation awarded to Rs.58,53,447/-, fixing liability of car driver, bus driver and the appellant as 40%, 30% and 30% respectively – Correctness:

Held: Concurrent finding that the appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle without a valid license is correct – However, the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver – Explanation given by the car driver for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway not a reasonable explanation – On a highway, high speed of vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road – Nothing on record to suggest that the car driver had taken any such precaution – Thus, the appellant liable for contributory negligence but only to the extent of 20% whereas the car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30% respectively – In the interest of justice, the notional income of the appellant taken as Rs.20,000/-; multiplier as 18, and future prospects at 40%, thus, the loss of income would be Rs.60,48,000/- – Attendant charges of Rs 18 lacs as fixed by the tribunal, and Rs. 5 lacs for the future medical expenses as granted by the High Court justified – For loss of marital prospects, amount increased to Rs.5 lacs – For all other heads, the concurrent findings upheld – Since, the appellant liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 20%, compensation of Rs.91,39,253/- payable to the appellant along with the interest @ 7.5% pa from the date of filing of the claim petition. [Paras 6-12]

Keywords: Compensation · Engineering student · Amputation of leg in a motor accident · Contributory negligence · Fixing liability of car driver, bus driver · Driving motorcycle without valid license · Sudden brakes applied by car driver · Highway · High speed vehicle · Functional disability · Notional income · Multiplier · Future prospects · Loss of income · Attendant charges · Future medical expenses · Loss of marital prospects

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

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 11.11.2022, whereby the Madras High Court reduced the compensation awarded to the appellant in a motor accident case from Rs. 73,29,653/-to Rs.58,53,447/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) On 07.01.2017, when the appellant was riding on a motorcycle along with his friend on the pillion, respondent no.2 suddenly applied the brakes of his car, which was ahead of the appellant’s motorcycle, and the appellant dashed his motorcycle into the rear side of
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 →