Summary and Analysis of S. Mohammed Hakkim vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: S. Mohammed Hakkim vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No(s). Of 2025 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 28062-63 of 2023)
Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar
Date of Judgment: July 29, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions and precedents:

• Road Regulation Rules, 1989 (Rule 23): Mandates drivers to maintain sufficient distance from vehicles ahead to avoid collisions.

• Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 & National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680: Guidelines for calculating compensation, including multiplier method and future prospects.

• Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh (2020 SCC OnLine SC 1562): Precedent for determining notional income of students in accident cases.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Accident Date: January 7, 2017

• Appellant: S. Mohammed Hakkim (20-year-old engineering student).

• Injuries: Amputation of the left leg (100% functional disability).

• Tribunal Award: Rs. 91,62,066/- (reduced to Rs. 73,29,653/- after 20% contributory negligence).

• High Court Modification: Reduced compensation to Rs. 58,53,447/- by altering negligence ratios (car driver: 40%, bus driver: 30%, appellant: 30%) and slashing attendant charges.

• Supreme Court Decision:
  Revised Negligence Ratios: Appellant (20%), car driver (50%), bus driver (30%).
  Enhanced Compensation: Rs. 1,14,24,066/- (reduced to Rs. 91,39,253/- after 20% contributory negligence).

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Contributory Negligence

• Tribunal’s View: Held the bus driver 80% negligent and appellant 20% negligent (for not maintaining distance). The car driver was exonerated.

• High Court’s View: Car driver (40%), bus driver (30%), appellant (30%).

• Supreme Court’s Ruling:
  The car driver’s sudden braking (without warning) was the root cause. His explanation (pregnant wife’s discomfort) was deemed unreasonable.
  The bus driver’s negligence (running over the appellant) aggravated injuries.
  The appellant’s contributory negligence (20%) was upheld for riding without a license and failing to maintain distance.

B. Quantum of Compensation

1. Loss of Income:
   Notional Income: Rs. 20,000/month (revised from Rs. 15,000) based on the appellant’s potential as an engineering graduate (referencing Navjot Singh).
   Calculation:
   Future prospects (40%): Rs. 28,000/month.
   Annual income: Rs. 3,36,000.
   Multiplier (18): Total loss = Rs. 60,48,000.

2. Attendant Charges:
   Tribunal: Rs. 18 lakhs (Rs. 6,000/month for 25 years).
   High Court: Reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs (no justification).
   Supreme Court: Restored Rs. 18 lakhs, citing lifelong need for assistance due to amputation.

3. Other Heads:
   Future Medical Expenses: Rs. 5 lakhs (upheld).
   Loss of Marital Prospects: Increased from Rs. 2.5 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs.
   Pain & Suffering, Discomfort, etc.: Unchanged (as per Tribunal).

C. Final Compensation

• Total: Rs. 1,14,24,066.

• After 20% Deduction: Rs. 91,39,253 (payable by car insurer (50%) and bus insurer (30%)).

• Interest: 7.5% p.a. from claim petition date.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court balanced justice by:

• Holding all parties accountable (revised negligence ratios).

• Ensuring fair compensation for the appellant’s lifelong disability and lost potential.

• Criticizing arbitrary reductions by the High Court (e.g., attendant charges).