[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Sikkim High Court

Nikhil Subba And Ors vs The Branch Manager, Icici Lombard ... on 20 March, 2026

Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai

Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai

               THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
                                    (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SINGLE BENCH : THE HON‟BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   MAC App. No.05 of 2025
                  Appellants               :        Nikhil Subba and Others

                                                                   versus

                  Respondents              :        The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard
                                                    General Insurance Company and Others

          Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Appearance
                  Mr. Rahul Rathi and Ms. Khushboo Rathi, Advocates for the
                  Appellants.
                  Mr. Prem Simon Chettri, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
                  None present for the Respondents No.2 & 3.
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date of Hearing                  :        20-03-2026
                                   Date of Pronouncement            :        20-03-2026
                                   Date of Uploading                :        21-03-2026
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The challenge in the instant Appeal is to the

computation of compensation, arrived at by the Learned Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, the

"MACT"), in MACT Case No.11 of 2024 (Nikhil Subba and Others vs.

The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and

Others), vide Judgment dated 26-12-2024.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants put forth the

contention that the Appellant No.1 had suffered 90% locomotor

permanent disability as duly established by Exbt-29 (collectively),

Disability Certificate of the Department of Empowerment of

Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and

Empowerment, Government of India, issued by the Medical

Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others

Authority, East District, Sikkim. The document specified that the

Appellant had been in a road traffic accident and was thereby

afflicted with traumatic paraplegia. The Appellant No.1 had also

relied on Exbt-8, Wound Certificate which detailed his injuries

including fracture of vertebrae. The MACT however failed to access

his disability as 100%, which flies in the face of the decision of this

Court in The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs.

Yoel Subba and Others which had relied on the Judgment of the

Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another2 while

assessing such disability.

(i) Advancing other grounds for the Appeal and walking

this Court through the computation made by the MACT, Learned

Counsel for the Appellants contended that, the annual income of

the Appellant No.1 prior to the accident was ₹ 3,60,000/- (Rupees

three lakhs and sixty thousand) only. However, while calculating

the loss of future earnings per annum, the MACT took into

consideration only 90% of the income prior to his accident and

thereby placed it erroneously at ₹ 3,24,000/- (Rupees three lakhs

and twenty four thousand) only, instead of ₹ 3,60,000/- (Rupees

three lakhs and sixty thousand) only. It was also urged that for

loss of future earnings, 40% ought to have been included in the

computation, in view of the fact that, the Appellant No.1 was

thirty-three years old at the time of the accident. However, the

MACT failed to do so and instead employed the multiplier of „16‟ to

₹ 3,24,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and twenty four thousand) only,

to arrive at an amount of ₹ 51,84,000/- (Rupees fifty one lakhs

and eighty four thousand) only. There is no challenge to the

2024 SCC OnLine Sikk 28

(2011) 1 SCC 343

Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others

adoption of 16 as multiplier. That, the amount for service of

attendant was pegged at ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only,

whereas this Court in Yoel Subba (supra), by reference to several

Judgments of the Supreme Court had allowed a sum of ₹

32,40,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs and forty thousand) only, to

the victim therein. On this facet however, Learned Counsel fairly

conceded that the Appellant No.1 is not entitled to a sum of ₹

32,40,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs and forty thousand) only, for

services of an attendant as computed in Yoel Subba (supra) but

would definitely be entitled to ₹ 28,80,000/- (Rupees twenty eight

lakhs and eighty thousand) only. It was next argued that the fact

of the Appellant‟s disability has not been decimated during his

cross-examination. It was also admitted that the Appellants are

not entitled to "cost of litigation" granted by the MACT as no

compensation under this head has been computed by any of the

Judgments of the Supreme Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended

that although a Cross Appeal has not been filed however the

amount granted by the MACT for pain and suffering and loss of

amenities is exorbitant, having been placed at ₹ 15,00,000/-

(Rupees fifteen lakhs) only and ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs)

only, respectively, when in Yoel Subba (supra) the amount under a

collective head comprising of pain, suffering and loss of amenities

was calculated at ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only. Hence,

the amount under the said head should be confined to not more

than ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only.

4. Due consideration has been afforded to the

submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties. I have also

Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others

perused the entire records before me, including the evidence and

documents on record.

5. Before addressing the arguments, it would be essential

to comprehend the facts of the case. The Appellant No.1, aged

thirty-three years, at the relevant time, earning about ₹

3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and sixty thousand) only, per

annum, was travelling near Singtam, East Sikkim, in a „Ford Figo‟

vehicle, bearing registration No.SK-01-P-3752, on 15-02-2021. A

Tata Truck bearing registration No.WB-73-F-4905 overtook the

Ford Figo vehicle and while doing so hit the car which was then

thrust off the road, to about fifty feet below. The Appellant No.1

the sole bread winner of his family was severely injured and

diagnosed with 90% permanent disability and traumatic

paraplegia. The Appellants were before the MACT with a Petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking

compensation of ₹ 61,88,244/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs, eighty

eight thousand, two hundred and forty four) only. The MACT

granted compensation of ₹ 74,96,244/- (Rupees seventy four

lakhs, ninety six thousand, two hundred and forty four) only.

6. That having been said, in the first instance, it would be

relevant to refer to Raj Kumar (supra), where the Supreme Court

while dealing with the aspect of disability and loss of earning

capacity inter alia expressed its view as hereunder;

"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that

Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others

the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341])

12. .......................................................................

13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood." [emphasis supplied]

(i) Learned Counsel for the Appellants had raised the

argument that the Appellant No.1 was completely bedridden post

the accident and unable to engage in day to day activities due to

his spinal injury which had paralyzed the lower portion of his body.

On examination of the documents relied on by the Appellants being

Exbt-8 and Exbt-29, it emerges without dispute that he is

paralyzed downwards from his waist. Consequent, upon the injury

to his spinal cord and limbs it is evident that he is unable to carry

out his day to day functions independently which he earlier did,

including attending nature‟s call. On account of his disability he is

also prevented from discharging his duties in his vocation as

Manager in a Cafe and other activities. In the obtaining

circumstances, being totally disabled he is deprived of his ability to

Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others

earn his livelihood. His disability can thus be assessed at 100%

and not merely 90% as assessed by the MACT.

(ii) I am also of the considered view that the MACT failed

to factor in 40% as loss of future earnings to the calculations which

is envisaged and allowed in the Judgment of National Insurance

Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others Loss of future

earnings is thereby granted to the Appellants.

(iii) So far as the attendant charges are concerned, the

Supreme Court in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Others4 was of the

view that;

"Attendant charges

22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court @ Rs 2500 per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami [AIR 1962 SC 1]. The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in award of "just compensation" within the meaning of the Act. .....................................................................................

25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the basic amount taken for determining the attendant charges is very much on the lower side. We must remember that this little girl is severely suffering from incontinence, meaning that she does not have control over her bodily functions like passing urine and faeces. As she grows older, she will not be able to handle her periods. She requires an attendant virtually 24 hours a day. She requires an attendant who though may not be medically trained but must be capable of handling a child who is bedridden. She would require an attendant who would ensure that

(2017) 16 SCC 680

(2020) 4 SCC 413

Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others

she does not suffer from bedsores. The claimant has placed before us a notification of the State of Haryana of the year 2010, wherein the wages for skilled labourer is Rs 4846 per month. We, therefore, assess the cost of one attendant at Rs 5000 and she will require two attendants which works out to Rs 10,000 per month, which comes to Rs 1,20,000 p.a., and using the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 21,60,000 for the attendant charges for her entire life. This takes care of all the pecuniary damages."

[emphasis supplied]

(iv) The MACT while computing medical attendant charges

appears not to have followed the principles laid out in Kajal (supra).

In the instant matter, the Appellant No.1 is a young man who will

have to suffer being bedridden, which would likely give rise to

bedsores and other allied medical issues. His wife, the Appellant

No.2 would not be competent to assist him on the medical aspect

and he would require a medically trained attendant. This Court in

Yoel Subba (supra), as per the decision in Kajal (supra) had

calculated attendant charges for one attendant for the lifetime of

the Appellant therein. The said circumstance would be applicable

in the present matter also. The details of calculation are as follows;

           ₹ 500 x 30 days                                   =         ₹ 15,000/- per month
           ₹ 15000/- x 12 months                             =         ₹ 1,80,000/- per annum
           Multiplier to be adopted is „16‟                  =         ₹ 28,80,000/-

[in terms of Paragraph 42 of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 5

-- ₹ 1,80,000/- x 16]

It is appropriate to award the above amount for attendant charges

for the Appellant No.1.

(v) The MACT had granted ₹ 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen

lakhs) only, for pain and suffering and ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two

lakhs) only, for loss of amenities. However, in terms of the

decision in Kajal (supra), this Court in Yoel Subba (supra) had

granted ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only, clubbing together

the heads under for "Pain, Suffering and loss of amenities".

(2009) 6 SCC 121

Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others

(vi) More recently, in K.S. Muralidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi and

Another , the Supreme Court has granted compensation of ₹

15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only, for pain and suffering.

Having perused the said Judgment it emanates that the Appellant

therein was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained

injuries which resulted in 90% permanent disability on the basis of

which the amount (supra) was allowed by the Supreme Court. In

the instant matter, applying the same logic, the amount for "Pain,

Suffering and loss of amenities" can be computed at ₹ 15,00,000/-

(Rupees fifteen lakhs) only and is granted accordingly.

(vii) There is no reason to interfere with the actual medical

expenses of ₹ 87,244/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand, two

hundred and forty four) only, granted by the MACT as it is

indubitable. No prayer has been made for a change in the future

medical expenses, which was computed at ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees

two lakhs) only and is thus not required to be altered. Cost of

litigation is however denied as no such head has been enumerated

by the Supreme Court.

7. The compensation worked out by the MACT and by this

Court, under the "other heads", are juxtaposed below for clarity;

                    Learned MACT                                       High Court
1. Medical expenses                   ₹ 87,244/-     1. Actual medical expenses            ₹ 87,244/-

2. Future medical treatment         ₹ 2,00,000/-     2. Future medical expenses          ₹ 2,00,000/-

3. Pain and suffering              ₹ 15,00,000/-     3. Pain, suffering and             ₹ 15,00,000/-
                                                        loss of amenities
4. Loss of amenities                ₹ 2,00,000/-
                                                     4. Attendant charges               ₹ 28,80,000/-
5. Service of attendant             ₹ 3,00,000/-

6. Cost of litigation                 ₹ 25,000/-

                 Total             ₹ 23,12,244/-                  Total                 ₹ 46,67,244/-





    2024 INSC 886

Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others

8. Consequently, the total compensation which is found to

be "just compensation" is computed as follows;


Annual income of the Appellant No.1                                         ₹      3,60,000.00

Add 40% of ₹ 3,60,000/- as Future Prospects                           (+)   ₹      1,44,000.00
[in terms of Paragraph 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra)]                        ₹      5,04,000.00
Net yearly income                                                            ₹     5,04,000.00

Multiplier to be adopted „16‟ (₹ 5,04,000/- x 16)                           ₹     80,64,000.00

[The age of the Appellant No.1 at the time of the accident being „33‟ the relevant multiplier of „16‟ in terms of Paragraph 42 of Sarla Verma (supra) is adopted]

Add Actual Medical Expenses (+) ₹ 87,244.00

Add Future Medical Expenses (+) ₹ 2,00,000.00 [in terms of the Judgment of Kajal (supra)]

Add Pain, suffering and loss of amenities (+) ₹ 15,00,000.00 [in terms of the Judgment of K.S. Muralidhar (supra)]

Add Attendant Charges (+) ₹ 28,80,000.00 [in terms of the Judgment of Kajal (supra)] Total = ₹ 1,27,31,244.00 (Rupees one crore, twenty seven lakhs, thirty one thousand, two hundred and forty four) only.

9. Learned Counsel for the Appellants and Learned

Counsel for the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company submits that

pursuant to the impugned Judgment of the MACT, the Appellants

No.1 and 2 have received a cheque each, bearing No.027762 and

027760, respectively, of the ICICI Bank, dated 24-12-2025, each

for a sum of ₹ 29,23,193/- (Rupees twenty nine lakhs, twenty

three thousand, one hundred and ninety three) only. The

Appellant No.3 has also received a cheque bearing No.027761, of

the ICICI Bank, dated 24-12-2025, amounting to ₹ 29,23,192/-

(Rupees twenty nine lakhs, twenty three thousand, one hundred

and ninety two) only, totaling to a sum of ₹ 87,69,578/- (Rupees

eighty seven lakhs, sixty nine thousand, five hundred and seventy