REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.  4330-4331 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.15569-15570 of 2007)

B. Kothandapani                       .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals are directed against the judgment and  

final order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the High Court of  

Judicature at Madras in C.M.A. Nos. 103 and 122 of 2001  

in and by which the High Court modified the award of the  

Tribunal, i.e., from Rs. 5,05,053.45/- to  Rs.4,05,053.45/-  

as compensation payable to the appellant-claimant.

1

3) Brief facts:

(a) The appellant-claimant sustained grievous injuries in  

a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 21.05.1998  

for  which  he  made  a  claim  before  the  Motor  Accident  

Claims Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “the  

Tribunal”) in O.P. No. 3868 of 1998 for a sum of Rs. 12  

lakhs as compensation.  The Tribunal, after finding that  

the  accident  was  caused  due  to  the  negligence  of  the  

driver  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  State  Transport  Corporation  

(Villupuram  Division-III),  Kancheepuram  (hereinafter  

referred  to  as  “the  Corporation”),  by  order  dated  

20.12.2000, quantified the compensation and passed an  

award for Rs.5,05,053.45.   

(b) Aggrieved  by  the  award  of  the  Tribunal,  the  

Corporation filed C.M.A. No. 103 of 2001 before the High  

Court  of  Madras  challenging  the  quantum  of  

compensation.   The appellant-claimant  also filed C.M.A.  

No.  122  of  2001  before  the  High  Court  for  the  

2

enhancement of the compensation amount.  Inasmuch as  

both  the  appeals  arose  from  the  same  award  of  the  

Tribunal, the High Court heard and decided the appeals  

together  and  passed  a  common  order  on  13.12.2006  

reducing the compensation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-.  

In other words, by the said order, the High Court allowed  

the  appeal  of  the  Corporation  to  the  extent  of  

Rs.1,00,000/- and dismissed the appeal of the claimant  

for enhancement of the compensation.

(c) Questioning the judgment and final order of the High  

Court, the claimant has filed the above appeals by way of  

special  leave  petitions  before  this  Court  praying  for  

enhancement of compensation to the extent awarded by  

the Tribunal.

4) Heard  Mr.  Vipin  Nair,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant-claimant  and  Mr.  T.  Harish  Kumar,  learned  

counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

3

5) The only point for consideration in these appeals is  

whether  the  appellant  is  entitled  to  a  sum  of  

Rs. 1,00,000/- towards “permanent disability” in addition  

to the amount awarded under the head “loss of earning  

capacity”?  Inasmuch as the issue is confined only to the  

quantum of compensation, it is not necessary to traverse  

the  factual  details  relating  to  the  accident.   Even  

otherwise, the claimant alone has filed the present appeals  

and  the  Corporation  has  not  challenged  the  findings  

relating to negligence, it  is not necessary to go into the  

conclusion  arrived  at  on  the  negligence  aspect  holding  

that  the  driver  alone  was  responsible  for  the  accident.  

Even, with regard to the quantum of compensation, except  

reduction  of  Rs.  1,00,000/-  which  was  awarded by  the  

Tribunal for permanent disability, it is not necessary to go  

into the quantum of compensation under various heads  

and the ultimate order of the Tribunal and the High Court.

4

6) The  appellant-claimant,  in  his  evidence  as  PW-1,  

deposed that he had sustained injury on the center finger  

of the right hand, his knee joint on the right leg had been  

dislocated,  injury  on the  right  cheek and eyes,  that  he  

cannot see with his left eye, his right foot had been injured  

and his right ankle joint dislocated.  He further explained  

that after the accident, he was immediately taken to the  

Government Hospital at Chengalpet and received the First  

Aid and later he had been admitted in the Govt. Stanley  

Hospital  and  was  under  treatment  for  25  days  as  

inpatient.   The  Discharge  Summary  issued  therein  has  

been marked as Ex. P-1.  He further narrated that he had  

undergone Physiotherapy after 25 days which is evident  

from Ex. P-2.  He had also undergone skin surgery at the  

Stanley Hospital and the certificate relating to the same  

has been marked as Ex.P-3.  Even after discharge from  

the Stanley Hospital,  he was not fully recovered and he  

had  been  admitted  in  Malar  Hospital  at  Adayar  and  

5

received treatment for two days.  The Discharge Summary  

has been marked as Ex.P-4.  According to the appellant-

claimant,  the  middle  finger  of  his  right  hand had been  

amputated  at  the  Malar  Hospital,  Adayar.   The  

prescription  issued  at  the  Malar  Hospital  has  been  

marked as Ex.  P-5.   From his  evidence,  it  is  seen that  

during  the  time  of  the  accident,  he  was  working  as  a  

Foreman in M/s Armstrong Hydraulics Limited and after  

the accident he is unable to do any work as he cannot  

bend the fingers of his right hand and using his left hand  

for eating and there is pain in his right leg and he cannot  

travel in a two wheeler or in a transport bus.   

7) Dr.  R.  Rajappa  was  examined  as  PW-2.   In  his  

evidence,  he  deposed  that  the  appellant-claimant  was  

injured  in  the  accident  said  to  have  been  occurred  on  

21.05.1998 and he had received treatment as an inpatient  

at the hospital at Chengalpet, later he had been admitted  

as an inpatient at the Govt. Stanley Hospital.  He had seen  

6

a lengthy scar on his right eye and his right eyebrow had  

been  found  to  be  fallen  and  the  retina  of  the  eye  was  

found  to  be  large  and  that  it  had  lost  the  shrinking  

capacity and the nerves of the eye had been affected and  

there was no circulation of blood and he lost his eye sight  

by  about  3  meters.   On  examination  and  perusing  the  

medical  documents  about  his  treatment,  he  concluded  

30% of the disability had been caused due to the injury on  

the right eye and issued a Disability Certificate which has  

been marked as Ex. P-9.

8) Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan was also examined as PW-3.  

In  his  evidence,  he  deposed that  the  right  hand of  the  

appellant had been injured due to the said accident and  

his middle finger on the right hand had been amputated  

and a plate had been placed on the fore finger towards the  

dislocation of the bone.   He also explained that he had  

undergone  treatment  towards  the  injury  on  the  right  

forehand and on the right cheek and that the plate is still  

7

there on the right fore finger due to which he cannot bend  

the fore finger and other fingers properly and it is difficult  

for him to eat and there was swelling on the palm of his  

right hand and issued a Disability Certificate which has  

been marked as Ex. P-10.  The Certificate issued by the  

employer Ex. P-8 shows that at the time of the accident,  

the appellant  was working as a Grade-III worker in the  

firm M/s Armstrong Hydraulics Ltd. and he was getting a  

salary of Rs.3,295.28/- after deductions.   

9) The Disability Certificates, Exs.P-9 & P-10, issued by  

the two doctors, show that the appellant had disability to  

the extent of 90%.  The Tribunal, after considering the fact  

that the assessment of disability may vary to the extent  of  

5%,  concluded  that  the  appellant  had  sustained  

permanent disability to the extent of 85% and taking note  

of  his  age  and avocation,  awarded compensation of  Rs.  

1,50,000/- for the same.

8

10) The  High  Court,  relying  on  its  own  Full  Bench  

decision  in  Cholan  Roadways  Corporation  Ltd. vs.  

Ahmed  Thambi  and  Others,  2006  (4)  CTC  433,  after  

finding that since the claimant had been awarded a sum  

of  Rs.  3  lakhs towards the  loss  of  earning capacity  set  

aside the award of Rs. 1,50,000/- granted under the head  

“permanent  disability”  and  awarded  a  further  sum  of  

Rs.50,000/-  in  addition  to  the  amount  awarded by the  

Tribunal.  

11) In  Ramesh  Chandra vs.  Randhir  Singh  &  Ors.  

(1990)  3  SCC  723  while  considering  award  of  

compensation  for  permanent  disability  (right  foot  

amputated) caused by the accident under Section 110B of  

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which is similar to Section  

168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court upheld  

the award of compensation under separate head of pain,  

suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, apart from the head  

9

of  loss  of  earnings.  The  discussion  and  ultimate  

conclusion are relevant which reads as under:-

“7. With regard to ground XIX covering the question that the  sum awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life  etc.  termed  as  general  damages  should  be  taken  to  be  covered by damages granted for loss of earnings is concerned  that too is misplaced and without any basis. The pain and  suffering and loss of enjoyment of life which is a resultant  and  permanent  fact  occasioned  by  the  nature  of  injuries  received by the claimant and the ordeal he had to undergo. If  money be any solace, the grant of Rs 20,000 to the claimant  represents  that  solace.  Money  solace  is  the  answer  discovered by the Law of Torts. No substitute has yet been  found to replace the element of money. This, on the face of it  appeals  to  us  as  a  distinct  head,  quite  apart  from  the  inability  to  earn  livelihood  on  the  basis  of  incapacity  or  disability which is quite different. The incapacity or disability  to  earn  a  livelihood  would have  to  be  viewed  not  only  in  praesenti but in futuro on reasonable expectancies and taking  into  account  deprival  of  earnings  of  a  conceivable  period.  This head being totally different cannot in our view overlap  the grant of compensation under the head of pain, suffering  and  loss  of  enjoyment  of  life.  One  head  relates  to  the  impairment of person’s capacity to earn, the other relates to  the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the  person himself. For these reasons, we are of the considered  view  that  the  contentions  raised  by  the  truck  owner  appellant in that behalf  must be negatived and we hereby  negative them.”

12)  It is true that the compensation for loss of earning  

power/capacity  has  to  be  determined  based  on  various  

aspects  including  permanent  injury/disability.  At  the  

same  time,  it  cannot  be  construed  that  compensation  

1

cannot be granted for permanent disability of any nature.  

For example, take the case of a non-earning member of a  

family who has been injured in an accident and sustained  

permanent disability due to amputation of leg or hand, it  

cannot be construed that no amount needs to be granted  

for permanent disability.  It cannot be disputed that apart  

from  the  fact  that  the  permanent  disability  affects  the  

earning capacity  of  the  person concerned,  undoubtedly,  

one has to  forego other  personal  comforts  and even for  

normal avocation they have to depend on others.  In the  

case on hand,  two doctors had explained the nature of  

injuries, treatment received and the disability suffered due  

to partial loss of eye-sight and amputation of middle finger  

in  the  right  hand and we have already adverted to  the  

avocation, namely, at the time of accident, he was working  

as  Foreman in  M/s Armstrong  Hydraulics  Ltd.   Taking  

note of his nature of work, partial loss in the eye sight,  

loss of middle finger of the right hand, it not only affects  

1

his earning capacity but also affects normal avocation and  

day-to-day  work.   In  such circumstance,  we  are  of  the  

view that  the  Tribunal  was  fully  justified  in  granting  a  

sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards permanent disability.   

13)  Considering the evidence of injured-claimant as PW-1  

and two doctors as PWs. 2 & 3 coupled with the Disability  

Certificates and medical documents, we conclude that the  

High  Court  was  not  justified  in  disallowing  a  sum  of  

Rs.1,00,000/-  from  the  total  compensation  of  

Rs.5,05,053.45 awarded by the Tribunal.  We agree with  

the  contention  raised  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant-claimant and restore the award of the Tribunal.  

In  other  words,  the  Corporation  is  liable  to  pay  Rs.  

5,05,053.45 with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.  If  

the  said  amount  has  not  been  deposited  so  far,  the  

Corporation is directed to deposit the same in the Tribunal  

within  two  months  from the  date  of  the  receipt  of  this  

order and if any amount had already been deposited/paid  

1

to the claimant, the same shall be adjusted.  On such a  

deposit being made, the appellant-claimant is permitted to  

withdraw the same.  The appeals are allowed to the extent  

mentioned above.  There shall be no order as to costs.

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.           (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  

NEW DELHI; MAY 12, 2011.    

1