This graduate lost his right hand and his marriage prospects. The Supreme Court gave him both back.

A graduate, a road accident, and a compensation that forgot his future

When Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N. was 24, he had a degree, a job as a Marketing Executive, and a salary of Rs.8,000 a month. Then, on 22 December 2007, a road accident changed everything. He suffered multiple cranial fractures, right hemiplegia, and a brachial plexus injury. He spent ten days in hospital, including time in the ICU. The accident left him with a 75% whole body disability. He could no longer use his right hand. He had to return to his native village and become dependent on his parents. He remained unmarried — no one came forward, he said, because of his disability. The Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal awarded him Rs.2,36,812. The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru affirmed that award and even reduced the interest rate from 8% to 6%. The Supreme Court of India, in Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528, asked a simple question: how could a tribunal take a graduate’s salary at Rs.3,000 a month when his salary certificate said Rs.8,000? The answer changed his life.

What the salary certificate actually said

The claimant, a 24-year-old graduate, produced a salary certificate (Ex.P-6) showing he earned Rs.8,000 per month as a Marketing Executive. The Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal (MACT, M.V.C. No. 914 of 2008) rejected this evidence. Why? Because the employer was not examined. The Tribunal took the claimant’s income at Rs.3,000 per month — less than what a mason earned in 2007. The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in MFA No. 6365/2009, dismissed the appeal on 7 January 2019, affirming the Tribunal’s award and reducing the interest from 8% to 6% per annum.

The claimant approached the Supreme Court. The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aravind Kumar (author of the judgment) admitted the appeal and allowed additional evidence — a disability certificate from a government hospital certifying 75% permanent physical impairment.

The argument that broke the case

The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal and High Court had erred in taking the income at Rs.3,000 per month when the salary certificate clearly showed Rs.8,000. He submitted that the claimant, a graduate, could not have been earning less than a mason, who in 2007 earned at least Rs.300 per day or Rs.9,000 per month. He also argued that the 75% whole body disability should have been taken into account for computing loss of future income, and that the claimant’s inability to marry due to the disability warranted compensation for loss of marriage prospects.

The learned Counsel for the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. opposed the appeal, arguing that the salary certificate was not proved by examining the employer, and that the disability did not necessarily mean loss of earning capacity.

The witness rule the Supreme Court applied

The Supreme Court rejected the hyper-technical approach. Justice Aravind Kumar, writing for the Bench, held that where a claimant produces a salary certificate on oath and the claimed salary is within the proximity of truth — comparable to prevailing wages for similar or even lower-skilled work — the Tribunal and High Court cannot reject it on the ground that the employer was not examined. The Court observed:

THE TEST: If the claimed salary is within the proximity of truth — meaning it is comparable to what a person with similar qualifications or even a lower-skilled worker would earn — the Tribunal must accept it. Non-examination of the employer is not a ground to reject credible documentary evidence.

The Court noted that even a mason in 2007 was earning not less than Rs.300 per day or Rs.9,000 per month. A graduate Marketing Executive earning Rs.8,000 was, if anything, underpaid. The Tribunal’s assumption of Rs.3,000 was arbitrary.

Why the disability certificate mattered more than the employer’s absence

The Court also addressed the second major error: the treatment of disability. The Tribunal and High Court had effectively ignored the 75% whole body disability because the employer was not examined and no letter from the employer was produced to show that the claimant could not work. The Supreme Court held that this was wrong. When a disability certificate issued by a competent government authority is on record, the inability of a claimant to work cannot be denied merely because the employer was not examined. The Court applied the multiplier method from Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 121, using a multiplier of 18 (the claimant was 24 at the time of the accident).

The head of compensation the Court created

Perhaps the most significant part of the judgment is the introduction of a novel head of compensation: loss of marriage prospects. The claimant had deposed that he remained unmarried because no one came forward to marry him due to his disability. The Court accepted this and awarded compensation under this head. The reasoning is straightforward: a 75% whole body disability that leaves a young man dependent on his parents and unable to use his right hand is not just a loss of income — it is a loss of the ability to lead a normal life, including the prospect of marriage.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU: If a claimant with substantial whole body disability deposes that marriage prospects have become bleak due to the disability, and evidence shows the claimant has remained unmarried, compensation under the head 'loss of marriage prospects' is awardable. This is now a recognised head of damages in motor accident claims.

The final calculation

The Supreme Court recalculated the compensation as follows:

• Income: Rs.8,000 per month (accepted from salary certificate)
• Loss of future income: computed using the multiplier method per Sarla Verma
• Pain and suffering: awarded
• Medical expenses: as awarded by Tribunal, not disturbed
• Loss of marriage prospects: awarded
• Loss of amenities: as awarded by Tribunal, not disturbed

Total compensation: Rs.15,94,812. The Court directed the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to deposit the amount within six weeks, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment or deposit, excluding amounts already deposited.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates, this judgment is a reminder that the Sarla Verma multiplier method is not a straitjacket — it is a tool that must be applied with common sense. The Court’s willingness to accept a salary certificate without examining the employer, and its recognition of loss of marriage prospects as a separate head, are significant. For CFOs and founders of companies that own vehicles, this judgment signals that insurance claims will be scrutinised more carefully — and that a claimant’s actual salary, not a notional figure, will be the starting point.

The bottom line: if you are a claimant with a credible salary certificate and a government-issued disability certificate, the Tribunal cannot reject your evidence on hyper-technical grounds. And if your disability has cost you the prospect of marriage, you can now claim for that loss too.