ANIL KUMAR versus BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. on 31 August 2018

876

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 10 S.C.R.

A

ANIL KUMAR

v.

BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYLTD. & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 4398 of 2016)

B

AUGUST 31, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ANDUDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

C

s. 173 – Compensation – Claimed – Motor accident – Causingpartial and permanent disability – To 25 years old unmarriedperson – Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,43,000/- towards compensation –High Court dismissed the appeal of the claimant – On appeal, held:Claimant was able to make out a case for further enhancement inDthe quantum of compensation – He is entitled for a further sum ofRs.5,00,000/- in lump sum in addition to the sum awarded by theTribunal – However, interest is not awarded on the enhanced sumof Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

E

HELD: 1. The appellant was able to make out a case forfurther enhancement in the quantum of compensation awardedby the Tribunal. The appellant (claimant) was a young unmarriedboy of 25 years at the time of accident and did not suffer with anykind of ailment. He had sustained fracture of both pelvic bonesFwith rapture of urethra and abdomen injuries for which heunderwent four operations and suffered partial but permanentdisability in his body which reduced his movement capacity to alarger extent. Due to partial but permanent disability, also losthis job. He spent a substantial sum for his medical treatment.GSince he was still not able to move freely due to disabilitiessuffered by him, he is entitled to be suitably compensated byawarding him monetary compensation. [Paras 11 and 12] [879-C-F]

2. The appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/-Hin lump sum in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal,

i.e., Rs.3,43,000/-. Thus, the appellant (claimant) is now entitledto claim a total sum of Rs.8,43,000/- from the respondents jointlyand severally by way of compensation for the injuries sustained,partial and permanent disability occurred, medical expensesincurred and loss occasioned due to injuries sustained by him inthe accident. However, interest is not awarded on the enhancedsum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellant is entitled to claim interestonly on the sum of Rs.3,43,000/- at the rate of 8 % awarded bythe Tribunal. Respondent No.1 (Insurance Company) is directedto deposit the awarded amount. [Paras 15, 16, 17 and 19] [880-A-C, D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4398of 2016.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2015 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Dharwad in M.F.A. No. 24385 of 2011 (MV).

C. B. Gururaj, Yogendar Kumar Varma, Prakash Ranjan Nayak,Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Manu Shalia, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by theclaimant against the final judgment and order dated 19.03.2015 passedby the High Court of Karnataka Bench at Dharwad in Misc. First AppealNo. 24385 of 2011(MV) whereby the High Court dismissed the appealfiled by the claimant (appellant herein) and affirmed the judgment andaward dated 12.04.2011 passed by the Member, MACT-II, Bellary inM.V.C. No.711 of 2010.

2. Few relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow toappreciate the question involved in the appeal.

3. The appellant was working as a cleaner in a lorry bearing Regn.No.AP-21/V-4682 belonging to respondent No.2 herein. At the relevanttime, it was insured with respondent No.1. On 05.12.2004, at about 1.00p.m. near VGM Factory, Belgal Road, Bellary, when the appellant wasstanding in front of the abovementioned lorry for the purpose of loadingiron ore, the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle without giving anysignal or horn and dashed it against him. As a result of which, theappellant sustained facture of both pelvic bones with rapture of urethraand abdomen injuries and other grievous injuries all over his body. The A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aappellant was then taken to VIMS Hospital, Bellary for the medicaltreatment. The appellant claimed to have spent a substantial sum towardshis medical treatment. Due to the aforementioned injuries sustained bythe appellant, he has become permanently disabled to do the work whichhe was doing before the accident. At the time of accident, the appellantwas 25 years of age and earning Rs.4000/- per month.B

4. The appellant filed a claim petition bearing M.V.C. No.711 of2010 before the MACT-II at Bellary under Section 173 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 and claimed compensation from the respondents. Itwas contested by the respondents. By award dated 12.04.2011, theTribunal partly allowed the appellant’s claim petition. It was held thatCthe monthly income of the appellant-claimant was Rs.4000/-, that theaccident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of offendingvehicle, that the appellant sustained partial but permanent disability inthe whole body to the extent of 25% and that the age of the appellantwas 25 years on the date of accident. The Tribunal then applied theDmultiplier of 18 and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- towards loss of future income, Rs.75,000/- towards pain and sufferings,Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards futuremedical expenses and Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income during laid upperiod. So far as the liability was concerned, the Tribunal held that thepolicy was a package policy equivalent to comprehensive policy, whichEcovers the risk of cleaner also.

5. The Tribunal accordingly awarded a total compensation ofRs.3,43,000/- with interest payable at the rate of 8% p.a. from the dateof claim petition till payment against the respondents jointly and severally.

F6. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, theappellant-Claimant filed M.F.A. No.24385 of 2011(MV) for enhancementof the compensation before the High Court. The Insurance Company(respondent No.1 herein) also felt aggrieved and filed M.F.A. No.23729of 2011 (MV) before the High Court for setting aside the award passedby the Tribunal.G7. The High Court, by order dated 19.03.2015, dismissed both theappeals.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant-claimant hasfiled this appeal by way of special leave in this Court. So far as the H

Insurance Company-respondent No.1 herein is concerned, they havenot filed any appeal against the impugned order.

9. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,is whether any case is made out on facts/evidence for furtherenhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to theappellant (claimant).

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part andaccordingly enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to theextent indicated infra.

11. In our considered opinion, the High Court erred in dismissingthe claimant’s appeal and thus committed an error in not further enhancingthe compensation. In other words, the appellant was able to make out acase for further enhancement in the quantum of compensation awardedby the Tribunal and, therefore, he is entitled for enhancement in theaward of compensation on the grounds mentioned below.

12. First, the appellant (claimant) was a young unmarried boy of25 years at the time of accident and did not suffer with any kind ofailment; Second, the appellant had sustained fracture of both pelvic boneswith rapture of urethra and abdomen injuries for which he underwentfour operations and suffered partial but permanent disability in his bodywhich reduced his movement capacity to a larger extent; Third, theappellant due to partial but permanent disability also lost his job; Fourth,he spent a substantial sum for his medical treatment; and lastly, since theappellant is not still able to move freely due to disabilities suffered byhim, he is entitled to be suitably compensated by awarding him monetarycompensation.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent (Insurance Company)urged that no case for any further enhancement in the compensation ismade out and that the High Court was, therefore, justified in upholdingthe award of the Tribunal.

14. We do not agree with the submission urged by the learnedcounsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company for the abovementionedreasons given by us.

15. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the groundsmentioned above, which found acceptance to the Tribunal, we are of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aconsidered opinion that the appellant is entitled for a further sum ofRs.5,00,000/- in lump sum in addition to what has been awarded by theTribunal, i.e., Rs.3,43,000/-.

16. In other words, the appellant (claimant) is now entitled to claima total sum of Rs.8,43,000/- from the respondents jointly and severallyBby way of compensation for the injuries sustained, partial and permanentdisability occurred, medical expenses incurred and loss occasioned dueto injuries sustained by him in the accident.

17. We, however, do not award interest on the enhanced sum ofRs.5,00,000/-, which we have awarded to the appellant. In this view ofCthe matter, the appellant is entitled to claim interest only on the sum ofRs.3,43,000/- at the rate of 8 % awarded by the Tribunal.

18. The appeal thus succeeds and is accordingly allowed.Impugned order is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal ismodified to the extent indicated above.

D

19. Respondent No.1 (Insurance Company) is directed to depositthe awarded amount, as mentioned above, within three months in theTribunal to enable the claimant (appellant) to withdraw the awardedsum after making proper verification by the Tribunal.

E

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.

F

G

H