K.S. MURALIDHAR versus R. SUBBULAKSHMI & ANR.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 835, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 835 : 2024 INSC 886
K.S. Muralidhar 
v. 
R. Subbulakshmi & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 12993 of 2024)
22 November 2024
[C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the enhancement of compensation towards pain 
and suffering for a motor accident victim having suffered 100% 
disability.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident – Compensation – 
Enhancement of – Victim aged below 40 years, met with 
an accident while traveling in his company vehicle which 
collided with container lorry driven rashly and negligently – 
Victim suffered 90% permanent disability – Tribunal taking 
the functional disability as 100%, awarded compensation of 
Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- as 
future medical expenses – High Court taking loss of future 
prospects at @ 40% awarded Rs.78,16,390/- as compensation 
with 6% interest per annum – Challenge to:
Held: Injuries sustained by the claimant are serious, and their 
effect on his life are long-lasting and even lifelong – Both the 
tribunal and the High Court rightly took the disability suffered by 
the claimant to be at 100% – In view of the injuries suffered, the 
‘pain and suffering’ caused, and the life-long nature of the disability 
afflicted upon the claimant, and the statement of the doctor, the 
case of the claimant is justified – Rs.15,00,000/- awarded under 
the head ‘pain and suffering’, considering the fact that the prayer 
of the claimant for
enhancement of compensation was by a sum 
of Rs.10,00,000/- – Compensation is just, fair and reasonable – 
Award given by the High Court modified only on two counts-future 
prospects and ‘pain and suffering’ – Compensation to be awarded 
* Author
836
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
stood at Rs.87,29,241/- – Thus, the total amount payable is 
Rs.1,02,29,241/-. [Paras 11, 12, 15, 16]
Words and Phrases – Definition of pain and suffering – 
Explanation:
Held: While each discipline such as bioethics, medical ethics, 
psycho-oncology, anaesthesiology, philosophy, sociology etc, 
has its own conception of the meaning of pain/suffering, within 
its confines, the commonality that emerges is that a person's 
understanding of oneself is shaken or compromised at its very 
root at the hands of consistent suffering – Sense of something 
being irreparably wrong in life; vulnerability and futility, is present 
and such a feeling will be present for the remainder of his natural 
life. [Para 13]
Motor Accident – Compensation – Just compensation – 
Concept of:
Held: Concept of just compensation rests on the principle of 
restitutio ad integrum which means restoration to the original 
condition, as far as possible, taking the person to whom damages 
are awarded, to a position as if the incident or in this case, the 
accident, had never occurred – It has certain limitations – Award 
of compensation, however much it may be, does not give back to 
the person who affected their life but only alleviates the worry of 
being able to secure the required amenities. [Para 1]
Case Law Cited
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : 
(2017) 16 SCC 680; Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance 
Co. Ltd. &
Anr. [2022] 1 SCR 653 : (2022) 13 SCC 142; Parminder 
Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2019] 8 SCR 986 : (2019) 
7 SCC 217; Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 9 SCC 
805; R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [1995] 1 SCR 
75 : (1995) 1 SCC 551; Sidram v. United India Insurance Company 
Ltd. [2022] 8 SCR 403 : (2023) 3 SCC 439; Karnataka SRTC v. 
Mahadeva Shetty [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 14 : (2003) 7 SCC 197; 
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [2020] 3 SCR 622 : (2020) 4 SCC 413; 
Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance [2022] 1 SCR 831 : (2022) 
7 SCC 738 – referred to.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
837
K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr.
Hassam and Anr. v. Rabot and Anr. (2024) UKSC 11; Heil v. Rankin 
[2001] QB 272; Attorney General of St. Helena v. AB & Ors., Privy 
Council Appeal No. 0034 of 2018 – referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
P. Ramanatha Iyer’s Advanced Law Lexicon 3rd Edition reprint 
2009; Eric Cassell, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, page 
3441; Noe-Steinmüller et.al, (2024) 165 (7) : p1434-1449 – 
referred to.
List of Websites
http://www.ericcassell.com/bio.html; https://med.uth.edu/
oep/members-2/eugene-v-boisaubin-md/; https://sps.
columbia.edu/faculty/arthur-w-frank-phd; https://www.mun.ca/ 
medicine/faculty-and-staff-resources/faculty-a-z/pullman-daryl.
php – referred to.
List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Enhancement of compensation towards pain and suffering; 
Motor accident; Victim suffered 100% disability; Compensation; 
Functional disability as 100%; Future medical expenses; Loss 
of future prospects; Pain and suffering; Irreparably wrong in 
life; Vulnerability and futility; Just compensation; Concept of 
just compensation; Principle of restitutio ad integrum; Award of 
compensation.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12993 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2020 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA No. 2573 of 2016
Appearances for Parties
Rohan Thawani, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Advs. for the Appellant.
T. Mahipal, Rohit
Kumar Sinha, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advs. for 
the Respondents.
838
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.
Leave granted.
2.	
The concept of just compensation rests on the principle of restitutio 
ad integrum which means restoration to the original condition, as far 
as possible, taking the person to whom damages are awarded, to 
a position as if the incident or in this case, the accident, had never 
occurred. While this is a well-recognized and positive principle of law, 
we must also recognize its limitations. The award of compensation, 
however much it may be, does not give back to the person who 
affected their life but only alleviates the worry of being able to secure 
the required amenities. 
3.	
In awarding non-pecuniary damages, this Court has often highlighted 
the difficulty in computation, for there is no manner in which such 
determination lends itself to formulaic ciphering. Every person in 
life has undertaken certain steps towards the realization of dreams, 
held goals and aspirations, and when they land up in such an 
unfortunate situation, where, for no fault of theirs, the trajectories 
of their lives are forever altered. Although, abstract in the written 
word, these factors form a large part of the ‘pain and suffering’ 
one undergoes apart from the manifested disability, which may be 
visible to another person. 
4.	
This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 12th 
November 2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
in M.F.A.No.2573 of 2016 (MV). This Miscellaneous First Appeal, in 
turn, was filed against the Award dated 17th April 2015 passed in 
M.V.C. No.3955 of 2009 by the Court of IX Additional Senior Civil 
Judge, Small Causes Court, at Bangalore.1
5.	
Certain past events require recall for adjudication of the present 
dispute. 
5.1	 On 22nd August 2008, the appellant was travelling in his Company 
vehicle, bearing registration No. KA-02-D-9626, towards his 
1	
hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
839
K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr.
place of employment, situated at Kasaba Industrial Area, 
Hoskote. On the way, the vehicle collided with a container lorry 
bearing registration No.TN-04-D-1047, which was allegedly 
being driven rashly and negligently. 
5.2	 The injuries sustained were to the extent of 90% permanent 
disability (as per the case put forward by the claimant-appellant 
before the Tribunal), i.e., 
“1.	
Fracture co-vertebra with anterior dislocation 
over C7
2.	
Cervical Spine revealed dislocation of C-6 
over C-7. 
C-7 Bilateral transverse process fracture and
3.	
C-6 fracture both laminae and body.”
5.3	 The Hoskote Police have registered a case bearing Crime 
No.414 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 
279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,2 against 
the driver of the lorry. 
5.4	 It was contended before the Tribunal that the claimant-appellant 
was employed as a workman in L.M. Glassfibre (India) Pvt. Ltd., 
Hoskote, earning a gross salary of Rs.28,221/- per month. Apart 
from being so employed, he was also an agent with the Life 
Insurance Corporation of India earning an annual commission 
between Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per annum. 
5.5	 Having heard arguments, the Tribunal framed two issues, 
one relating to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and the 
second regarding the quantum of compensation and by whom 
it will be payable. 
5.6	 The Tribunal3 concluded that the lorry was indeed being
driven 
rashly and negligently and qua compensation it was held that 
respondent No.2 therein (New India Assurance Company Limited) 
would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest 
2	
IPC for short
3	
It is to be noted that this determination of compensation was made after the High Court remitted the 
matter vide order dated 12th August 2014 for consideration afresh, on appeal from award dated 10th 
February 2011 passed by the IXth Additional Senior Civil Judge, member, MACT-7, Court of Small 
Causes, Bangalore
840
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
per annum on the above said sum (excluding future medical 
expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-) from the date of Petition till payment. 
6.	
Aggrieved by the order, both, the Insurance Company and the 
claimant-appellant, approached the High Court. 
6.1	 The Court held that the Tribunal had rightly taken functional 
disability to be 100% and was correct in not deducting 
compensation of Rs.6,61,371/- paid by his employer to the 
claimant-appellant. 
6.2	 On the aspect of loss of future income, it was held that the 
claimant-appellant, since he was below the age of 40, was 
entitled to 40% under this head. The amount was calculated 
to be Rs.70,22,520/-. In conclusion, considering other heads 
as well, the amount of compensation arrived at was a total of 
Rs.78,16,390/- as opposed to Rs.58,09,930/- awarded by the 
Tribunal. 
6.3	 The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount 
within four weeks, excluding interest, for the compensation 
awarded under the heading future medical expenses. The 
interest rate was maintained at 6%. 
7.	
Further, aggrieved by the final judgment and order of the High Court, 
the claimant-appellant is before us. 
8.	
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned 
counsel for the claimant-appellant, that :-
(i)	
The High Court erred in taking future prospects at @ 40% 
instead of 50% in accordance with National Insurance Co. 
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi;4
(ii)	
Under the head ‘pain and
suffering’, the compensation awarded 
by the High Court is insufficient given the 100% functional 
disability. In arguing that the compensation should be increased 
to Rs.10,00,000/-, reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court 
in Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 
& Anr.,5 and, in particular, para 20 thereof, wherein it was held 
4	
[2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680
5	
[2022] 1 SCR 653 : (2022) 13 SCC 142
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
841
K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr.
that in the attending facts and circumstances, considering the 
multiple brain injuries/injuries sustained by the claimant because 
of which he was comatose and bedridden, Rs.10,00,000/- was 
awarded as enhanced compensation, observing the same to 
be reasonable;
(iii)	 The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of future medical 
expenses, which the High Court maintained without any 
discussion. Under this head too, it was submitted that the 
compensation should be enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- in view 
of Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd; 6 and 
Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.7.
9.	
The age of the claimant-appellant at the time of the accident was 
37 years.8 The computation of future prospects is to be done as per 
the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay 
Sethi (supra) para 59.3, which records the conclusion in this regard, 
reads as under :-
“59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of 
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards 
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent 
job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. 
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased 
was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was 
between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 
15%. Actual salary should read as actual salary less tax.”
10.	 It is submitted that the claimant-appellant’s employment was permanent 
in
nature, and as such, the loss of future income ought to be calculated, 
in terms of the above, at 50%. The High Court, in para 23 of the 
judgment, observes that the total income of the claimant-appellant 
was Rs.27,867/- per month. 50% thereof is Rs.13,933/-. His income, 
therefore, comes to Rs.41,800/- (27,867 + 13,933). Considering the 
above-computed income, the compensation under the head loss of 
future prospects would be Rs.41,800 x 12 x 15 x 100% = Rs.75,24,000/- 
as opposed to Rs.70,22,520/- as calculated by the High Court. 
6	
[2019] 8 SCR 986 : (2019) 7 SCC 217
7	
(2020) 9 SCC 805
8	
Claim petition, Annexure A-3
842
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The total compensation as it stands at the moment would be 
Rs.80,67,870/- + Rs.6,61,371/- = Rs.87,29,241/-. 
11.	 Let us now consider the claimant-appellant’s prayer for enhancement 
of compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’. It cannot 
be disputed that the injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant 
are serious, and their effects on his life are long-lasting; one may 
even say lifelong. The examination of the doctor, namely, Dr. N.C. 
Prakash, forming part of record as Annexure P-5, dated 6th October 
2010 reads as under:
“5. I further state that recently I examined the patient on 
30-9-2010 for assessment of disability. He complains of 
the following: 
a.	
No sensation to below the C-7 Dermatome. 
b.	
Lost sensation of bowel and urinary system.
c.	
No control below the neck.
d.	
Needs assistance for every activity.
6. On examination I found the following:
At present he is in wheel chair bound with no movements 
(Grade 0/5) in both lower limbs, minimal movements in 
bilateral upper limb proximally with wrist being very weak 
(1/5 power) and grip is not possible. He has no urinary 
control, has no sensation of bowels and is on urinary 
catheter. He needs help for all his day to day activities. He 
was an Assistant Team Leader in LM Glass Fibers India 
Pvt. Ltd. and now can’t do any work. He has almost no 
chance of further improvement and impairment is likely to 
be permanent. All put together he has a
disability of about 
85% to the whole body.”
12.	 It is to be noted that both the Tribunal and the High Court have taken 
the disability suffered by the claimant-appellant to be at 100%. We 
find no ground to take a different view. 
13.	 While acknowledging that ‘pain and suffering’, as a concept escapes 
definition, we may only refer to certain authorities, scholarly as also 
judicial wherein attempts have been made to set down the contours 
thereof.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
843
K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr.
13.1	 The entry recording the term ‘pain and suffering’ in P. 
Ramanatha Iyer’s Advanced Law Lexicon9 reads as under:-
“Pain and suffering. The term ‘Pain and suffering’ 
mean physical discomfort and distress and include 
mental and emotional trauma for which damages can 
be recovered in an accident claim.
This expression has become almost a term of art, 
used without making fine distinction between pain 
and suffering. Pain and suffering which a person 
undergoes cannot be measured in terms of money 
by any mathematical calculation. Hence the Court 
awards a sum which is in the nature of a conventional 
award [Mediana, The (1900) AC 113, 116]”
13.2	 Eric Cassell,10 an American Physician and Bioethicist, defines 
‘pain’ not only as a sensation but also ‘as experience embedded 
in beliefs about causes and diseases and their consequences’, 
and ‘suffering’ as ‘the state of severe distress associated with 
events that threaten the intactness of person’.
13.3	 In a recent article11 published in the journal of the International 
Association for the Study of Pain, it has been recorded that there 
is no consensus on what exactly the concept of pain-related 
suffering includes, and it is often not precisely operationalised 
in empirical studies. The authors in their systematic review 
analysed 111 articles across a variety of disciplines such as 
bioethics, medical ethics, psycho-oncology, anaesthesiology, 
philosophy,
sociology etc., we may refer to few of them:
13.3.1	
Eugene V. Boisaubin,12 who is currently a Professor at 
the University of Texas, at Houston, in a 1989 article 
defined it as “Suffering is experienced by individual 
and arises from threats to the integrity of the individual 
as a complex social and psychological entity.” 
9	
3rd Edition reprint 2009, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, page 3441
10	
http://www.ericcassell.com/bio.html 
11	
Noe-Steinmüller et.al, (2024) “Defining suffering in pain: a systematic review on pain-related suffering 
using natural language processing.” 165 (7) : p1434-1449 
12	
https://med.uth.edu/oep/members-2/eugene-v-boisaubin-md/
844
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
13.3.2	
Andrew Edgar, who is currently a Reader Emeritus 
in Philosophy at Cardiff University at UK has defined, 
in a 2007 article suffering as an “experience of life 
never getting better, revealing in the sufferer only 
vulnerability, futility, and impotence.”
13.3.3	
Arthur W. Frank,13 Professor Emeritus, Department 
of Sociology, University of Calgary in his well-known 
article “Can We Research Suffering?”, published in 
2001, observed that “at the core of suffering is the 
sense that something is irreparably wrong with our 
lives, and wrong is the negation of what could have 
been right. Suffering resists definition because it is 
the reality of what is not.” 
13.3.4	
Daryl Pullman14 who currently serves as University 
research Professor, Bioethics at the Memorial 
University of Newfoundland, Canada in his 2002 
article defined suffering as the “product of [physical], 
psychological, economic, or other factors that 
frustrate an individual in the pursuit of significant 
life projects.”
13.4	 The Judicial Studies Board, now known as the Judicial College 
in the United Kingdom, produced guidelines in 1992 to produce 
greater consistency of awards and make the judicial scale 
of values more easily accessible. They have been deduced 
from a study of past cases, examining the range of awards 
therein. The latest edition of these guidelines was published 
in 2021.15 They record the difficulty of computing ‘pain and
suffering’ as under :-
“It is widely accepted that making of an award 
of general damages for pain and suffering is a 
somewhat artificial task. It involves the Judge seeking 
to convert the pain and suffering of a given claimant 
into a monetary award which he or she considers 
13	
https://sps.columbia.edu/faculty/arthur-w-frank-phd 
14	
https://www.mun.ca/medicine/faculty-and-staff-resources/faculty-a-z/pullman-daryl.php 
15	
See : Hassam and Anr. v. Rabot and Anr. (2024) UKSC 11
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
845
K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr.
to be reasonable by way of compensation. That is 
a difficult task and one which has historically led to 
judges making widely varying awards of damages 
in respect of relatively comparable injuries a result 
which not only offends the principle of equality 
before law but results in unnecessary appeals and 
the incurring of additional cost, apart altogether from 
the burden that such appeals place on the Court’s 
own scarce resources.”
13.5	 In determining non-pecuniary damages, the artificial nature 
of computing compensation has been highlighted in Heil v. 
Rankin,16 as referred to in Attorney General of St. Helena 
v. AB & Ors.17 as under:-
“23. This principle of ‘full compensation’ applies to 
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage alike. But, 
as Dickson J indicated in the passage cited from 
his judgment in Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta 
Ltd, 83 DLR (3d) 452, 475-476, this statement 
immediately raises a problem in a situation where 
what is in issue is what the appropriate level of ‘full 
compensation’ for non-pecuniary injury is when the 
compensation has to be expressed in pecuniary 
terms. There is no simple formula for converting 
the pain and suffering, the loss of function, the loss 
of amenity and disability which an injured person 
has sustained, into monetary terms. Any process of 
conversion must be essentially artificial. Lord Pearce 
expressed it well in H West & Son Ltd v Shephard 
[1964] AC
326, 364 when he said:
‘The court has to perform the difficult and artificial 
task of converting into monetary damages the 
physical injury and deprivation and pain and to give 
judgment for what it considers to be a reasonable 
sum. It does not look beyond the judgment to the 
spending of the damages.’
16	
[2001] QB 272
17	
Privy Council Appeal No. 0034 of 2018.
846
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
24. The last part of this statement is undoubtedly 
right. The injured person may not even be in a 
position to enjoy the damages he receives because 
of the injury which he has sustained. Lord Clyde 
recognised this in Wells v Wells [1999] 1 AC 345, 
394H when he said: ‘One clear principle is that what 
the successful plaintiff will in the event actually do 
with the award is irrelevant.”
13.6	 In the context of the United States, the most important piece 
of legal literature regarding ‘pain and suffering’ is an article 
titled Valuing Life and Limb in Tort: Scheduling Pain and 
Suffering, published in the year 1989. Relevant extracts 
thereof read as under :
“Pain and suffering and other intangible or non-
economic losses are even more problematic. 
Physical pain and attendant suffering have for 
centuries being recognised as legitimate elements 
of damages, and “modern” tort law has seen a 
marked expansion of the rights to recover for forms of 
mental anguish. Some Courts have even permitted 
recovery for emotional trauma unaccompanied by 
physical injury, including derivative losses stemming 
from injuries to family members. The precise 
elements of compensable non-economic loss vary 
by jurisdiction. Pain and suffering may be used as 
a catch-all category for the jury’s consideration of 
all non-pecuniary losses in a case of a non-fatal 
injury, subsuming other qualitative categories such 
as mental anguish and
humiliation. More commonly, 
though, other non-economic elements – such as 
“loss of enjoyment of life” are accorded independent 
standing …”
Another important observation is that: 
“Whatever the categories of non-economic damages 
allowed in a given jurisdiction, the law provides 
no objective benchmarks valuing them. As one 
commentator notes, “Courts have usually been 
content to say that pain and suffering damages should
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
847
K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr.
amount to ‘fair compensation’, or a ‘reasonable 
amount’, ‘without any definite guide’.” 
13.7	 Consideration of the above, underlines that while each discipline 
has its own conception of the meaning of pain/suffering, within 
its confines, the commonality that emerges is that a person’s 
understanding of oneself is shaken or compromised at its very 
root at the hands of consistent suffering. In the present facts, it 
is unquestionable that the sense of something being irreparably 
wrong in life, as spoken by Frank (supra); vulnerability and 
futility, as spoken by Edgar, is present and such a feeling will 
be present for the remainder of his natural life. 
14.	 In respect of ‘pain and suffering’ in cases where disability suffered 
is at 100%, we may notice a few decisions of this Court:-
14.1	 In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.18 It was 
observed :
“17. The claim under Sl. No. 16 for ‘pain and 
suffering’ and for loss of amenities of life under 
Sl. No. 17, are claims for non-pecuniary loss. 
The appellant has claimed lump sum amount of 
Rs.3,00,000 each under the two heads. The High 
Court has allowed Rs.1,00,000 against the claims of 
Rs.6,00,000. When compensation is to be awarded 
for ‘pain and suffering’ and loss of amenity of life, 
the special circumstances of the claimant have to 
be taken into account including his age, the unusual 
deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on
his future life. The amount of compensation for 
non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but 
the award must reflect that different circumstances 
have been taken into consideration. According to 
us, as the appellant was an advocate having good 
practice in different courts and as because of the 
accident he has been crippled and can move only 
on wheelchair, the High Court should have allowed 
an amount of Rs.1,50,000 in respect of claim for 
18	
[1995] 1 SCR 75 : (1995) 1 SCC 551
848
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
‘pain and suffering’ and Rs.1,50,000 in respect 
of loss of amenities of life. We direct payment of 
Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) against the 
claim of Rs.6,00,000 under the heads “‘pain and 
suffering’” and “Loss of amenities of life”.
(Emphasis Supplied)
14.2	 This Judgment was recently referred to by this Court in Sidram 
v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.19 reference was also 
made to Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty 20 (irrespective 
of the percentage of disability incurred, the observations are 
instructive), wherein it was observed :
“18. A person not only suffers injuries on account 
of accident but also suffers in mind and body on 
account of the accident through out his life and a 
feeling is developed that his no more a normal man 
and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another 
normal person can. While fixing compensation for 
pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities, 
features like his age, marital status and unusual 
deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to 
be reckoned.”
14.3	 In Kajal v. Jagdish Chand 21 considering the facts of the 
case, i.e., 100% disability, child being bedridden for life, her 
mental age being that of a nine-month-old for life - a vegetative 
existence, held that “even after taking a conservative view of 
the matter an amount payable for the ‘pain and suffering’ of 
this child should be at least Rs.15,00,000/-.” 
14.4	 In Ayush v. Reliance General
Insurance 22 relying on Kajal 
(supra) the amount awarded in ‘pain and suffering’ was 
enhanced to Rs.10,00,000. The child who had suffered the 
accident was five years old and the Court noted in paragraph 2 
that :
19	
[2022] 8 SCR 403 : (2023) 3 SCC 439
20	
[2003] Supp. 2 SCR 14 : (2003) 7 SCC 197
21	
[2020] 3 SCR 622 : (2020) 4 SCC 413
22	
[2022] 1 SCR 831 : (2022) 7 SCC 738
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
849
K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr.
“As per the discharge certificate, the appellant is 
not able to move both his legs and had complete 
sensory loss in the legs, urinary incontinence, bowel 
constipation and bed sores. The appellant was aged 
about 5 years as on the date of the accident, hence 
has lost his childhood and is dependent on others 
for his routine work.”
14.5	 In Lalan (supra) cited by the claimant-appellant, the Tribunal 
awarded Rs.30,000/- which was enhanced to Rs.40,000/- by 
the High Court. Considering the fact that the appellant therein 
has suffered extensive brain injury awarded compensation 
under ‘pain and suffering’ to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.
15.	 Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, 
the ‘pain and suffering’ caused, and the life-long nature of the disability 
afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor 
as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant 
to be justified and as such, award Rs.15,00,000/- under the head 
‘pain and suffering’, fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of 
the claimant–appellant for enhancement of compensation was by 
a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair 
and reasonable at the amount so awarded.
16.	 It stands clarified that we have modified the Award, as given by the 
High Court, only on two counts, i.e., future prospects and ‘pain and 
suffering’. The amount as enhanced, shall
carry interest @ 6%, 
from the date of filing of the petition for special leave to appeal. 
According to paragraph 10, the compensation to be awarded stood 
at Rs.87,29,241/-. Consequent to the above discussion on ‘pain and 
suffering’, the total amount now payable is Rs.1,02,29,241/-.
17.	 The appeal is allowed as aforesaid. Pending applications, if any, 
stand disposed of. 
18.	 No costs.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain