ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE versus PRATAP SON OF ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE & ANOTHER on 21 August 2018

ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE

v.

PRATAP SON OF ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE & ANOTHER

(Civil Appeal No. 8420 of 2018)AUGUST 21, 2018

[R. F. NARIMAN AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

Motor accident – Leading to permanent disability to theextent of 75% – Claim for compensation – Tribunal grantedRs.7,00,000/- as a lump-sum compensation with interest @ 7% perannum – In first appeal, High Court held that for grantingcompensation multiplier method should be used and therebyenhanced the compensation amount to Rs.14,65,500/- with 9%interest per annum – In appeal, held: The purpose of compensationunder the Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to theposition prior to the accident – In the cases of accidents leading toinjuries and disablements, person must not only be compensatedfor his physical injury, but also for non-pecuniary losses – Thecompensation amount is enhanced to Rs.20,29,000/- with 9%interest per annum from the date of application till the date ofpayment.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The purpose of compensation under the MotorVehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved tothe position prior to the accident. In cases of motor accidentsleading to injuries and disablements, a person must not only becompensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniarylosses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant isentitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, andenjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed,but for the injuries. [Paras 5 and 6] [17-G-H]

Yadav Kumar v. The Divisional Manager, NationalInsurance Company Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341 :[2010] 10 SCR 746 – referred to.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A2. The Appellant was employed by witness No. 3 and wasdriving his personal car from 01.08.2008 on a monthly salary ofRs. 8,500/-. He also gave a certificate to that effect. The HighCourt erroneously concluded that it would be just and appropriateif the monthly income of the appellant is considered at Rs. 5,000/-on the ground that the salary of Rs. 8500/- for a driver was on theBhigher side. [Para 4.3] [17-D-E]

3. The Appellant’s income was Rs. 8,500/- per month. TheAppellant was 29 year at the time of the accident. The Multiplierwould be 17. Where the claimant suffers a Permanent Disabilityas a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss ofCfuture earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of thePermanent Disability on his earning capacity. The effect of thePermanent Disability on the earning capacity of the injured mustbe considered; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity interms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified inDterms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings sufferedby the claimant. Loss of future income is calculated toRs. 13,00,500/-. [Paras 7.1 and 7.2] [18-D, E-G; 19-A]

Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporationand Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 ;ERaj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343:[2010] 13 SCR 179 – relied on.

4. The Appellant has claimed compensation for actual lossof income at Rs. 1,50,000/-. This claim of the Appellant cannotsucceed. The grant of loss of future income compensates for anyFfurther period of time where income was lost. Actual loss ofincome can only be awarded for the month in which the accidenttook place. Therefore, one month’s salary being Rs. 8,500/- beawarded for the month of October. [Para 7.3] [19-B]

5. The Appellant has claimed reimbursement of MedicalGExpenses at Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Tribunal recorded that theClaimant had incurred total expenditure of Rs. 5,50,000/- till thedate of the judgment for medicines, hospital charges, doctor’sfee, operation charges, travelling expenses and expense forspecial diet and granted Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation basedon actual expenditure. Since the Appellant has claimed expenses H

for special diet and attendance charges separately before thisCourt, therefore, it is appropriate to award Rs. 2,50,000/- asclaimed on account of recurring medical expenses. [Para 7.4][19-C-E]

6. The Appellant has claimed Rs. 90,000 for attendance andconveyance charges. The High Court had granted Rs. 70,000/-.Keeping in consideration the injury suffered, the Appellant haspermanently lost the source of livelihood as his movement hasgot severely restricted with permanent impairment of the rightside of his body. As he is permanently disabled for life, towardsthe attendance and conveyance charges Rs. 90,000/- is grantedas claimed. [Para 7.5] [19-E-F]

7. The Appellant made a claim for Rs.1,00,000/- for specialdiet and nutrition. The High Court awarded Rs. 20,000/- on thisaccount. This amount seems to be meager to this Court giveninflationary trends, and increased costs of living. Therefore,compensation for special diet and nutrition be enhanced toRs. 80,000/-. [Para 7.6] [19-G; 20-B]

Puttamma and Ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Anr.(2013) 15 SCC 45 : [2013] 16 SCR 831 – relied on.

8. The compensation for loss of amenities in future life isenhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. [Para 7.7] [20-C]

9. In case of permanent disability to the extent of 75%, andloss of livelihood of the sole bread winner of the family, it is notonly the victim, but also his kith and kin who face the trauma.The Appellant has had steel rods and artificial material insertedinto his body through surgery. His income earning capacity hasbeen reduced by 100%. In such circumstances, it is appropriateto award the appellant Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for thelife-long pain and suffering by him and his family. [Para 7.8][20-D]

10. The Appellant is entitled to payment of a totalcompensation of Rs. 20,29,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs TwentyNine Thousand Only) along with Simple Interest at 9% p.a. fromthe date of the application made before the Tribunal till the dateof payment from both the Respondents, who are jointly andseverally liable for the same. [Para 8] [21-A-B]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8420of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2017 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No.1353Cof 2015.

Devvrat, Aditya Kr. Dubey, Rizwan, Shekhar Prasad Gupta,G. Balaji, Ms. Pooja, Ravi S. Jha, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Advs. for theappearing parties.

DThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDU MALHOTRA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The present Appeal by Special Leave has been filed againstthe final judgment and order in F.A. No. 1353 of 2015 dated 25.01.2017passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench)Ein a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are asfollows:

3.1. The Appellant herein is the Claimant, who was 29 year old atFthe time of the accident, and employed as a driver, drawing amonthly salary of Rs. 8,500.

On 16.10.2009, at about 9:30 a.m. the Appellant and his wifewere travelling by motorcycle from Pune towards Tambewasi,when a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. MH-14/AE 1108Gowned and driven by Respondent No. 1 collided with them.The car was coming from the wrong side of the road, andwas trying to overtake a State Transport Bus, when it hit theAppellant’s motor cycle.

The Appellant fell on the road and sustained multiple inju-ries. The Appellant fractured his right thigh, right ankle, and H

right arm. He was admitted in various hospitals fortreatment, and underwent several operations where steel rodswere inserted in his right thigh and right knee. Artificialmaterial was inserted in his right shoulder to facilitaterestricted movement. The injuries suffered by the Appellantresulted in Permanent Disability to the extent of 75% forwhich a Disability Certificate was submitted before theMACT. Appellant also filed an Injury Certificate whichrecords the various injuries suffered by him.

3.2. With respect to the injuries sustained by the wife, a separateClaim Petition was filed before the MACT. The presentAppeal pertains only to the claim for enhancement ofcompensation made by the Appellant.

3.3. The Appellant filed Claim Petition bearing M.A.C.P. No. 33of 2014 before the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Bhoom seeking compensation under various headsamounting to Rs. 20,00,000 against Respondent No. 1 – theowner of the Maruti Car and Respondent No. 2 –InsuranceCompany.

3.4. The MACT vide Order dt. 07.02.2015 partly allowed theClaim Petition and granted Rs. 7,00,000 as a lump-sumcompensation payable jointly and severally by both theRespondents within one month along with Interest @ 7%p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of the ClaimPetition till the date of realization.

The MACT erroneously made a departure from themultiplier method, and granted a lump-sum amount ascompensation. The Tribunal did not grant compensationunder various heads such as actual loss of income, futureloss of income, medical expenses, and compensation forpermanent disability sustained.

3.5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation grantedby the MACT, and the method used for awardingcompensation, the present Appellant filed First Appeal u/S.173 of the M.V. Act for enhancement of compensation,before the High Court. The High Court vide its Judgmentdated 25.01.2017 partly allowed the Appeal by enhancing the

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

16SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Acompensation to Rs. 14,65,500 with 9% Interest p.a. fromthe date of application, till realization. The High Court heldthat lump-sum compensation cannot be awarded, and themultiplier method must be followed. The compensationawarded by the High Court was as follows:

B

C

D

TOTALE

3.6. The Appellant has challenged the judgment of the High Courtby way of the present Appeal by Special Leave Petition.

4. We have heard counsel for both parties, and carefully perusedFthe record filed before the Court.

The undisputed facts of the present case are:

4.1. Both the Courts below have found from the evidence, thatthe Respondent was driving his car rashly and negligently.

G4.2. The Appellant, who was a young 29 year old on the date ofthe accident, has suffered serious injuries which have causedPermanent Disability to the extent of 75%. The Appellantproduced his Orthopedic Doctor who corroborated that theAppellant was hospitalized from 25.10.2010 to 09.11.2010,and again from 25.11.2010 to 05.12.2010. The Appellant had H

sustained multiple injuries which resulted in PermanentDisability to the extent of 75% which is evidenced from theDisability Certificate issued by his Doctor. On account of thePermanent Disability, the Appellant is not able to drive anymotor vehicle.

4.3. As a consequence of the accident, the Appellant lost hisemployment as a driver, and his livelihood. Before theaccident, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 8,500. Inorder to prove his income, the Appellant produced hisemployer Mr. Neeraj Rajendra Tiwari before the High Courtas Witness No. 3.

Mr. Neeraj Tiwari deposed that he was working as a General Manager in Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. from June,2008, and was the head of the Engine Department. Hefurther deposed that the Appellant was employed by him, andwas driving his personal car from 01.08.2008 on a monthlysalary of Rs. 8,500. He also gave a certificate to that effect.

The High Court erroneously concluded that it would be just and appropriate if the monthly income of the Appellant isconsidered at Rs. 5,000 on the ground that the salary ofRs. 8500 for a driver was on the higher side.

We do not agree with the reasoning given by the High Court for not accepting the income of the Appellant. Theincome of the Appellant must be taken as Rs. 8500 per month.

4.4. The Appellant submitted that even though his permanentdisablement is 75%, his ability to earn his income wasreduced by 100%, as he is not able to move or do any work.

5. In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries anddisablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only becompensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losseswhich he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to becompensated for his inability to lead a full life, and enjoy those things andamenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries.

6. The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act isto fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to theaccident.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThis Court in Yadav Kumar v. The Divisional Manager, NationalInsurance Company Ltd.[1] explained “ just compensation” in thefollowing words:

“It goes without saying that in matters of determination ofcompensation both the Tribunal and the Court are statutorilyBcharged with a responsibility of fixing a ‘just compensation’. It isobviously true that determination of a just compensation cannotbe equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of ‘justcompensation’ obviously suggests application of fair and equitableprinciples and a reasonable approach on the part of the Tribunalsand Courts. This reasonableness on the part of the Tribunal andCCourt must be on a large peripheral field.”

7. The Appellant would be entitled to compensation as follows:

7.1. The Appellant’s income was Rs. 8,500 per month. TheAppellant was 29 year at the time of the accident. TheMultiplier laid down in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DelhiDTransport Corporation and Ors.[2] would be 17.

7.2. Loss of future income must be calculated in terms of thejudgment of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar[3] whereinthe Court held that where the claimant suffers a PermanentDisability as a result of injuries, the assessment ofEcompensation for loss of future earnings would depend uponthe impact and effect of the Permanent Disability on hisearning capacity. The effect of the Permanent Disability onthe earning capacity of the injured must be considered; andafter assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of aFpercentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms ofmoney, to arrive at the future loss of earnings suffered by theclaimant. Hence, the compensation to be awarded iscalculated as follows:

i.Minimum annual income of Appellant = 8,500 x 12 =Rs. 1,02,000

G

ii.Loss of future income at the level of his disability(i.e. 75%) = 75% of 1,02,000 = Rs. 76,500 p.a.

1( 2010 ) 10 SCC 3412 (2009) 6 SCC 121H3 (2011) 1 SCC 343

iii. Multiplier applicable (29 years) = 17

iv. Loss of future earnings = 76,500 x 17 = Rs. 13,00,500

7.3. The Appellant has claimed compensation for actual loss ofincome at Rs. 1,50,000. This claim of the Appellant cannotsucceed. The grant of loss of future income compensates forany further period of time where income was lost. Actualloss of income can only be awarded for the month in whichthe accident took place. Therefore, one month’s salary beingRs. 8,500 be awarded for the month of October.

7.4. The Appellant has claimed reimbursement of MedicalExpenses at Rs. 2,50,000.

The MACT in para 4 of the judgment recorded that the Claimant had incurred total expenditure of Rs. 5,50,000 tillthe date of the judgment for medicines, hospital charges,doctor’s fee, operation charges, travelling expenses andexpense for special diet and granted Rs. 2,00,000 ascompensation based on actual expenditure.

Since the Appellant has claimed expenses for special diet and attendance charges separately before this Court, we findit appropriate to award Rs. 2,50,000 as claimed by him onaccount of recurring medical expenses.

7.5. The Appellant has claimed Rs. 90,000 for attendance andconveyance charges. The High Court had granted Rs. 70,000.Keeping in consideration the injury suffered, the Appellanthas permanently lost the source of livelihood as hismovement has got severely restricted with permanentimpairment of the right side of his body. As he is permanentlydisabled for life, towards the attendance and conveyancecharges we grant to the Appellant Rs. 90,000 as claimed.

7.6. The Appellant made a claim for Rs.1,00,000 for special dietand nutrition. The High Court awarded Rs. 20,000 on thisaccount. This amount seems to be meager to this Court giveninflationary trends, and increased costs of living.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AIn Puttamma and Ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Anr.[4] thisCourt has stated:

“... we hold that the Second Schedule as was enacted in 1994 hasnow become redundant, irrational and unworkable due to changedscenario including the present cost of living and current rate ofBinflation and increased life expectancy.”

In view of the said principle, compensation for special diet andnutrition be enhanced to Rs. 80,000.

7.7. The compensation for loss of amenities in future life isenhanced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000.

C7.8. The Appellant has further claimed compensation for pain andsuffering at Rs. 2,00,000. The High Court awarded theAppellant Rs. 1,00,000 on this count. In case of permanentdisability to the extent of 75%, and loss of livelihood of thesole bread winner of the family, it is not only the victim, butalso his kith and kin who face the trauma. The Appellant hasDhad steel rods and artificial material inserted into his bodythrough surgery. His income earning capacity has beenreduced by 100%.

In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to award theAppellant Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for the life-long pain andEs uffering by him and his family.

H

The Appellant is entitled to payment of a total compensation ofRs. 20,29,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Only)along with Simple Interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the applicationmade before the MACT on 11.10.2010 till the date of payment fromboth the Respondents, who are jointly and severally liable for the same.The amount be paid to the Appellant within twelve weeks from the dateof this judgment.

9. Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.Pending applications if any are accordingly disposed of.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H