RAMESH versus KARAN SINGH & ANR on 16 September 2022

110

[2022] 18 S.C.R. 110

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 18 S.C.R.

RAMESH

A

v.

KARAN SINGH & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 6365 of 2022)

BSEPTEMBER 16, 2022

[M.R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act 1988: s.166 – Permanent Disability –Appellant-claimant, was a Navy merchant and earning USD 1000– He sustained multiple injuries in a vehicular accident, due toCwhich there was an amputation of the right upper limb below elbowand he had to undergo five operations during his prolongedhospitalization — Claim for compensation of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- underdifferent heads made before MACT – The Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs. 6,68,000/- only – Appeal for enhancement ofDcompensation – High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.14,82,000 observing that though claimant’s right hand below elbowwas amputated resulting in 70 % disability qua right arm, he couldstill earn something and that the Merchant Navy is usually a job forsix months in a year – Hence instant appeal – Held: High Courtobserved that the claimant can still earn something – However, theEclaimant will not be able to do any work in Merchant Navy – HighCourt also observed that in Merchant Navy, usually the job is forsix months in a year – The said observation is absolutely withoutany basis – No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents onthat – It cannot be said that the claimant would do nothing for restFof six months – High Court has also not considered the future risein income – Under the circumstances and in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have awardedthe future economic loss considering the loss of income at least atRs. 30,000/- per month – High Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/-only towards pain, shock, and suffering – However, the right handGbelow elbow of the claimant was amputated – During prolongedhospitalization, he was operated five times – Considering the fiveoperations, prolonged hospitalization, and suffering, the amountof Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the High Court under the head of pain,shock, and suffering can be said to be on a lower side – In the factsH

and circumstances of the case, Rs. 4,00,000/- granted towards pain,shock, and suffering.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. By the impugned judgment and order, the HighCourt while awarding the future economic loss has consideredthe loss of income at Rs. 18,000/- per month. However, theappellant was serving as Merchant Navy and his salary at therelevant time was USD 1000. His right hand below elbow wasamputated resulting in 70% disability qua right arm. The HighCourt has observed that the claimant can still earn something.However, the claimant will not be able to do any work in MerchantNavy. The High Court also observed that in Merchant Navy,usually the job is for six months in a year. The said observation isabsolutely without any basis. No evidence is led on behalf of therespondents on the aforesaid. It cannot be said that the claimantwould do nothing for rest of six months. The High Court has alsonot considered the future rise in income. Under the circumstancesand in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Courtought to have awarded the future economic loss considering theloss of income at least at Rs. 30,000/- per month. Therefore, thetotal loss comes to Rs. 57,60,000/- (30000x12x16). [Para 5][113-D-F]

2. The High Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/- only towardspain, shock, and suffering. However, it is required to be notedthat the right hand below elbow of the claimant was amputated.During prolonged hospitalization, he was operated five times.Looking to the serious injuries, the claimant was required to beshifted to Medical College and Hospital at Rohtak and thereafterto Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi, where he was remainedadmitted from 03.01.1997 to 21.01.1997. Therefore, consideringthe five operations, prolonged hospitalization, and suffering, weare of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by theHigh Court under the head of pain, shock, and suffering can besaid to be on a lower side. In the facts and circumstances of thecase, narrated hereinabove, the claimant shall be entitled to atleast Rs. 4,00,000/- towards pain, shock, and suffering. Theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is to bemodified accordingly. [Para 5.1][113-G-H; 114-A-B]

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

[2022] 18 S.C.R.

ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6365of 2022.

From the Judgment and Orders dated 16.07.2019 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.83 of 2002.

Aditya Vashishath, Ms. Neelam Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.BMs. Sakshi Mittal, Adv. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.R. SHAH, J.1. The application for deleting the name of respondent No. 2 hereinCis allowed at the risk and responsibility of the appellant herein.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab &Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 83 of 2002, by which, the HighCourt has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the appellant hereinD– injured – claimant and has enhanced the amount of compensation toRs. 14,82,000/- only, the original claimant has preferred the present appeal.

3. In a vehicular accident which occurred on 02.01.1997, theappellant – original claimant sustained multiple injuries. There was anamputation of right upper limb below elbow at upper l/3[rd] of fore-arm.EDuring the prolonged hospitalization, the injured – claimant was requiredto undergo five operations. At the time of accident, the appellant wasgetting USD 1000 as a salary in Merchant Navy where he was employedat Belgium excluding free food, accommodation, and free air ticket. Theappellant approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for shortF“Tribunal”) claiming Rs. 1,02,00,000/- for compensation under differentheads. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,68,000/- under differentheads including the expenses covering medicine, treatment, special diet,pain, shock and suffering and future loss of income. While awardingfuture economic loss, the Tribunal determined and considered the incomeof the injured at Rs. 3,500/- per month. In the appeal preferred by theGclaimant, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court hasenhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 6,68,000/- to Rs.14,82,000/-. While awarding future economic loss, the High Court hasthough considered the income of the injured at Rs. 36,000/- per month inMerchant Navy, Belgium, but has actually considered the loss of income H

at 50% of the same on the ground that in Merchant Navy, usually the jobis for six months in a year and that as per the medical evidence, theinjuries have resulted in 70% disability qua right arm. The High Courthas awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/-for special diet and Rs. 5,000/- for transportation. Thus, the High Courthas determined and awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,82,000/- towardscompensation along with 7.5% per annum interest from the date of filingof claim petition till realization.

3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment andorder passed by the High Court in determining and awarding onlyRs. 14,82,000/- towards compensation, the original claimant – injuredhas preferred the present appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length.

5. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court whileawarding the future economic loss has considered the loss of income atRs. 18,000/- per month. However, it is required to be noted that theappellant was serving as Merchant Navy and his salary at the relevanttime was USD 1000. His right hand below elbow was amputated resultingin 70% disability qua right arm. The High Court has observed that theclaimant can still earn something. However, it is required to be notedthat the claimant will not be able to do any work in Merchant Navy. TheHigh Court also observed that in Merchant Navy, usually the job is forsix months in a year. The said observation is absolutely without anybasis. No evidence is led on behalf of the respondents on the aforesaid.It cannot be said that the claimant would do nothing for rest of six months.The High Court has also not considered the future rise in income. Underthe circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, theHigh Court ought to have awarded the future economic loss consideringthe loss of income at least at Rs. 30,000/- per month. Therefore, thetotal loss comes to Rs. 57,60,000/- (30000x12x16).

5.1 The High Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/- only towards pain,shock, and suffering. However, it is required to be noted that the righthand below elbow of the claimant was amputated. During prolongedhospitalization, he was operated five times. Looking to the serious injuries,the claimant was required to be shifted to Medical College and Hospitalat Rohtak and thereafter to Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi, where A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Ahe was remained admitted from 03.01.1997 to 21.01.1997. Therefore,considering the five operations, prolonged hospitalization, and suffering,we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by theHigh Court under the head of pain, shock, and suffering can be said tobe on a lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, narratedhereinabove, we are of the opinion that the claimant shall be entitled toBat least Rs. 4,00,000/- towards pain, shock, and suffering. The impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court is to be modifiedaccordingly.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passedCby the High Court is modified and it is ordered that the appellant herein– injured – claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 62,35,000/-with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitiontill realization.

7. The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.DThe enhanced amount of compensation is to be deposited by therespondents with the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeksfrom today and on such deposit the same be paid to the original claimant– appellant herein by account payee cheque. No costs.

EDevika Gujral and Anurag Bhaskar(Assisted by : Iram Jan, LCRA)

Appeal partly allowed.

F

G

H