S. THANGARAJ versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER on 6 March 2018

12

[2018] 3 S.C.R. 12

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 3 S.C.R.

A

S. THANGARAJ

v.

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY

THE BRANCH MANAGER

B

(Civil Appeal No. 3152 of 2017)

MARCH 06, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

C

Motor Vehicles – Disability sustained as a result of motoraccident – Appellant-victim, a loadman engaged by a buildingcontractor, was 26 years old at the time of the accident – Tribunaldetermined the disability at 70%, and granted compensation ofRs 11,27,359/- with interest @ 12% per annum – High Court reducedthe interest awarded by the Tribunal to 7.5% per annum whilemaintaining the award of compensation – On appeal, held: Injuriessustained by appellant are serious – As a result of multiple fracturessustained by him, appellant has lost complete sensation below theabdomen – Evidently he cannot work anymore as loadman – In thecircumstances, assessment of disability at 70% is incorrect – On arealistic view of the matter, the nature of the disability must beregarded as being complete – Compensation granted by Tribunalaccordingly enhanced by Rs 3,00,000/- — Appellant entitled tointerest @ 9 % per annum, on total amount of compensation (insteadand in substitution of 7.5% per annum awarded by the High Court).

D

E

F

The appellant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident.The Tribunal computed the compensation payable to the appellanton account of the loss of income occasioned by the disability atRs 9,72,000/-. However, on the basis of the opinion of the doctorthat the disability was to the extent of 70%, the net amount wasGdetermined at Rs 6,80,400/-. After taking into account the medicaland other expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total compensationof Rs 11,27,359/- together with interest of 12% per annum. TheHigh Court maintained the award of compensation but reducedthe interest component from 12% per annum to 7.5% per annum.

H

In appeal to this Court, the appellant pleaded that the High Courthas not assessed the compensation in a correct manner.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. The submission of the insurer that there was aconcession on the part of the appellant before the High Courtwhich must bind him, cannot be accepted. The statement madeby counsel for the appellant before the High Court was on whetherthe Tribunal had granted just and reasonable compensation.Whether in fact the compensation which has been granted is justand reasonable cannot hence be construed as a matter ofconcession and it would not preclude the appellant from raising acontest in these proceedings. [Para 7] [15-D-E]

2. On perusing the record it is evident that the injuriessustained by the appellant are indeed of a serious nature. As aresult of the multiple fractures sustained by him, the appellanthas lost complete sensation below the abdomen. Evidently hecannot work anymore as loadman. In these circumstances, theassessment of disability at 70 per cent is incorrect. On a realisticview of the matter, the nature of the disability must be regardedas being complete. In the circumstances, there is no reason orjustification for the deduction of an amount of Rs.2,91,600/- bythe Tribunal (Rs. 9,72,000/- minus Rs 6,80,400/-). The amountso deducted must be restored and is rounded off to Rs. 3,00,000/-.Moreover, the appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of the claim petition. [Para 8][15-F-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3152of 2017.

From the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2012 of the High Courtof Madurai Bench of Madras in Cross Objection No. 24 of 2012 inCMA (MD) No.499 of 2008.

R. Nedumaran, Adv for the Appellant.

Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Adv for the Respondent.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Delay condoned.

2. The claim arises out of a disability sustained as a result of amotor accident. The Tribunal granted compensation to the claimant inthe amount of Rs 11,27,359 together with interest at 12 per cent perBannum. The High Court has simply reduced the interest awarded bythe Tribunal to 7.5 per cent per annum while maintaining the award ofcompensation. The claimant is in appeal.

3. The accident took place on 1 August 2004. The appellant was26 years old at the time of the accident. The accident took place whenCthe appellant was a pillion rider on a motor cycle ridden by one Edwin.As the motor cycle was proceeding from Marthandam, a lorry bearingRegistration No.TN 69 Z 2979 dashed against it. The lorry thereafterdashed against an electric pole and collided with a residential propertyresulting in the death of an occupant of the house. The appellant sustainedDserious injuries in the accident. The injuries have been described in theevidence of PW 4, the doctor at the hospital where the appellant wastreated. The appellant sustained a fracture in his spinal cord, right legand right hip bone. As a result of the accident the appellant has nosensation or movement in his legs. The Tribunal accepted the evidenceof PW 4 and observed thus:E

“Moreover PW 4 the doctor has stated in his evidence that belowthe abdomen of the petitioner, there is no movement and sensationin two legs…”

The Tribunal determined the disability at 70%, on the basis ofmedical opinion. The Tribunal computed the compensation payable toFthe appellant on account of the loss of income occasioned by the disabilityat Rs 9,72,000. However, on the basis of the opinion of the doctor thatthe disability was to the extent of 70 per cent, the net amount wasdetermined at Rs 6,80,400. After taking into account the medical andother expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs 11,27,359Gtogether with interest of 12 per cent per annum.

4. Before the High Court, the insurer filed an appeal against theaward of the Tribunal. The appellant filed cross objections. The HighCourt has reduced the interest component from 12 per cent per annumto 7.5 per cent per annum.H

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitsthat the High Court has not assessed the compensation in a correctmanner. There was – it has been urged – no justification to compute thedisability at 70 per cent. The appellant was at the relevant time a loadmanengaged by a building contractor. The nature of the disability involves acomplete loss of sensation in both the legs. Hence, it would not be possiblefor him to work as a load man. Moreover it was urged that there was nojustification to reduce the award of interest to 7.5 per cent per annumand the award of the Tribunal on interest should be maintained.

6. On the other hand it has been urged on behalf of the insurerthat the High Court was justified in maintaining the award of compensationsince it was urged on behalf of the appellant-claimant at the hearingbefore the High Court that the Tribunal had granted just and reasonablecompensation. Learned counsel supported the judgment of the HighCourt.

7. Having perused the order passed by the High Court, we arenot in agreement with the submission of the insurer that there was aconcession on the part of the appellant before the High Court whichmust bind him. The statement made by counsel for the appellant beforethe High Court was on whether the Tribunal had granted just andreasonable compensation. Whether in fact the compensation which hasbeen granted is just and reasonable cannot hence be construed as amatter of concession and it would not preclude the appellant from raisinga contest in these proceedings.

8. On perusing the record it is evident that the injuries sustainedby the appellant are indeed of a serious nature. As a result of the multiplefractures sustained by him, the appellant has lost complete sensationbelow the abdomen. Evidently he cannot work anymore as loadman. Inthese circumstances, the assessment of disability at 70 per cent isincorrect. On a realistic view of the matter, the nature of the disabilitymust be regarded as being complete. In the circumstances, we find noreason or justification for the deduction of an amount of Rs 2,91,600 bythe Tribunal (Rs 9,72,000 minus Rs 6,80,400). The amount so deductedmust be restored and is rounded off to Rs 3,00,000. Moreover we are ofthe view that the appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per centper annum from the date of the claim petition.

AB

C

DE

FG

A9. The appeal is accordingly allowed by enhancing thecompensation granted by the Tribunal by an amount of Rs 3,00,000.The appellant would be entitled to interest @ 9 per cent per annum, onthe total amount of compensation (instead and in substitution of 7.5%per annum awarded by the High Court). The differential amount shallbe paid over to the appellant within a period of eight weeks from today.BThere shall be no order as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeal allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H