Page 1

NON - REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8215 – 8216 OF 2009

DINESH SINGH             … APPELLANT

VERSUS

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL      … RESPONDENTS INSURANCE CO LTD.

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgment  

passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit  Bench at Dharwad in  

M.F.A. No. 4502 of 2007 C/W. M.F.A. No. 3293 of 2007.  

2. The appellant is the claimant.  He filed claim petition being M.V.C.  

No.  515  of  2004 before  the  Motor  Accidents  Claims Tribunal,  Hubli,  

stating that he is B.E. Degree holder in Metallurgy.  He is aged 24 years  

and  was  working  as  Quality  Engineer  in  Hospet  Steels  Ltd.    On  

13.04.2004 while he was returning to his home from the company he  

met  with  an  accident.   In  the  accident,  he  sustained  grievous  and  

fracture injuries to the knee and also left  hand.   He was taken to a  

1

Page 2

hospital in Hubli for treatment, where his left leg was amputated.  He  

was in the said hospital as an inpatient till June, 2004.  Thereafter, he  

took treatment at Tulasidas Gopalji Charitable and Dhakleswar Temple  

Trust  and  All  India  Institute  of  Physical  Medicine  and  Rehabilitation,  

Bombay and he is still under treatment and presently walking with the  

assistance of an artificial limb.   

3. According to him, due to amputation of  his left  leg,  he suffered  

100% permanent  disability.   At  the  time of  accident,  he  was  getting  

monthly salary of Rs.17,200/-.as an Engineer.  Because of the disability,  

he had to  resign his  job as an Engineer  and take up a desk job in  

Industrial  Development Bank of India.  Being a bachelor,  he has lost  

prospects  of  getting  married.   He  thus  laid  the  claim  for  a  total  

compensation of  Rs.40,75,000/-  under  different  heads for  the injuries  

sustained by him.   

4. The respondent resisted the claim of the appellant.  The Tribunal  

considering  the  evidence  placed  by  the  appellant,  both  oral  and  

documentary,  awarded  in  all  Rs.30,60,160/-  as  compensation  to  the  

appellant  under  different  heads.   Against  the  said  award,  both  the  

appellant as well as the respondent filed appeals before the High Court  

of Karnataka, the appellant seeking enhancement, while the respondent  

for  reduction.   The  High  Court  dismissed  the  appeal  filed  by  the  

2

Page 3

appellant  and  partly  allowed the  appeal  filed  by  the  respondent  and  

reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.30,60,160/-  

to Rs. 6,32,000/-.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant  

at  the time of  accident,  was a  young boy of  24 years  age and was  

unmarried.   He  completed  his  Engineering  in  Metallurgy  and  was  

working  in  a  private  company  as  Quality  Engineer  and  was  getting  

Rs.17,200/-  p.m.   The  appellant  is  very  intelligent,  and  because  of  

amputation of his left leg above the knee, he suffered more than 80%  

permanent disability, and his future became very bleak.  The appellant  

had to resign his job as an Engineer and take up a desk job in a private  

Bank, which he may lose due to recession in the economy.  However,  

the  High  Court  has  without  any  valid  and  proper  reason,  without  

considering  the  above  facts  and  without  appreciating  the  evidence  

properly, has drastically reduced the just and reasonable compensation  

awarded  by  the  Tribunal.   He  thus  prayed  that  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances  of  the  case,  just  and  reasonable  compensation  be  

granted to the appellant.

6. On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  

supported  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  insofar  as  it  reduced  the  

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and further contended that the  

3

Page 4

reduced  compensation  awarded  by  the  High  Court  being  just  and  

reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, needs no further  

enhancement.   

7. Heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  and  the  learned  

counsel for the respondent.

8. The fact that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident is not in  

dispute.  It is also not in dispute that the appellant is B.E. Degree holder  

in Metallurgy and was working as Quality Engineer in Hospet Steels Ltd.  

Though the appellant  contended that  at  the time of  accident  he was  

earning Rs.17,200/-  per  month,  but  in  the absence of  any document  

produced by the appellant to prove the same, the Tribunal as well as the  

High Court, took the monthly salary of the appellant at Rs.12,840/- as  

evidenced by Ex.P35, and we do not find any error with the said income  

taken by the Tribunal and the High Court.   The appellant  due to the  

injuries sustained by him, undisputedly,  was out of  employment for  a  

period of two years.  However, the High Court committed an error in  

holding that the appellant was out of employment for only six months.  

As the appellant was out of employment for a period of two years (24  

months), his loss of earnings for the said period would be Rs.12,840/- x  

24 = Rs.3,08160/-, which the Tribunal has rightly awarded.   

4

Page 5

9. The Tribunal taking into consideration the monthly salary of  the  

appellant at Rs.12,840/- and considering his young age at 24, applied  

the  multiplier  17  and  having  regard  to  the  60% permanent  disability  

suffered  by  him,  arrived  the  compensation  towards  future  loss  of  

earnings at Rs.15,72,000/-.  However, while agreeing that the appellant  

that as per Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he suffered  

80%  permanent  disability,  taking  into  consideration  the  subsequent  

employment of the appellant in Industrial Development Bank of India as  

a Grade-B Officer, held that the appellant did not suffer any loss of future  

earnings  on  account  of  his  permanent  disability,  and  accordingly,  

disallowed the claim of the appellant under the head ‘loss of earnings’.   

10. We have considered the material placed before us, particularly the  

evidence  of  the  Doctor,  who  stated  that  the  appellant  suffered  60%  

disability  of  the  total  body,  and  in  his  cross-examination  denied  the  

suggestion that  the appellant  does not  require  any further  treatment.  

The  fact  that  the  appellant  has  resigned  as  Quality  Engineer  from  

Hospet Steels Ltd and took up desk job in Industrial Development Bank  

of  India  because  of  his  permanent  disability,  suffered  by  him  in  the  

accident  is  not  in  dispute.   Obviously,  because  of  the  permanent  

disability suffered by the appellant, who is an Engineer by profession,  

cannot take up such profession, which requires moving from one place  

5

Page 6

to  other  place.   Therefore,  the  reasoning  of  the  High  Court  that  the  

appellant  has  not  suffered  any  financial  loss  because  of  permanent  

disability  having  regard  to  the  fact  that  subsequently  he  took  up  

employment in Industrial Development Bank of India as Grade-B Officer,  

cannot be sustained.  Once the permanent disability is fixed, taking into  

consideration, its impact on the employment/profession of the claimant,  

the compensation has to be awarded.  Since the disability suffered by  

the appellant, which is fixed at 60% and which is permanent in nature,  

impacted his employment and future prospects, we are of the considered  

opinion  that  the  Tribunal  has  rightly  determined  the  compensation  

Rs.12,840/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.26,19,360/- towards loss of future earnings,  

and taking into consideration the 60% permanent disability suffered by  

the appellant,  awarded him the actual  compensation under  the head  

‘loss of future earnings’ at Rs.15,71,616/- by rounding off the same to  

Rs.15,72,000/-.  

11. The appellant, admittedly, was in hospital as an inpatient for a long  

time.  He was operated upon for two times, and presently he is able to  

move with the assistance of an artificial limb, and he still  has to take  

treatment, as is evident from the evidence of the Doctor, and considering  

the fact that loss of limb causes lot of pain to any living being, we are of  

the  considered  opinion  that  compensation  payable  to  the  appellant  

6

Page 7

under the head ‘pain and agony’, should be reasonable.  The Tribunal  

has awarded Rs.  70,000/-,  and we feel  it  appropriate to  enhance by  

another Rs.50,000/-, and upon such enhancement, the appellant would  

be entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- under the head ‘pain and agony’.  Therefore,  

we hold that the High Court erred in reducing the compensation payable  

to the appellant under the head “pain and agony’.   

12. The compensation payable to the appellant under the heads ‘loss  

of  amenities’  and  ‘loss  of  marriage  prospects’,  also  requires  

enhancement.  The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,50,000/- under the head  

‘loss  of  amenities’.   We feel  it  appropriate  to  enhance  the  same by  

another Rs.1,00,000/-.  Upon such enhancement, the appellant would be  

entitled to Rs.3,50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life.   

13. The  Tribunal  awarded  Rs.50,000/-  towards  ‘loss  of  marriage  

prospects’ .    We feel it  appropriate to enhance the same by another  

Rs.50,000/-, and on such enhancement, the appellant would be entitled  

to Rs.1,00,000/- under the head ‘ loss of marriage prospects.    

14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/-  towards future medical  

expenses.  Considering the fact that the appellant still requires treatment  

and has to change his artificial limb as and when required, we are of the  

considered opinion that the compensation under the said head needs  

7

Page 8

enhancement,  and  accordingly,  we  enhance  the  same  by  another  

Rs.50,000/-.  The appellant therefore, would be entitled to Rs.5,50,000/-.  

15. In  view of  the evidence produced by the appellant  that  he has  

spent  about  Rs.3,10,000/-  towards  medical  expenditure,  including  

conveyance and attendance fee, for the period he was under treatment,  

we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  same  needs  to  be  granted,  and  

accordingly, we grant the same as awarded by the Tribunal, and find  

fault with the High Court in reducing the same.   

16. Thus, in all, we hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation  

of Rs. 33,10,160/- as under:

1. Pain and Agony Rs.1,20,000/-

2. Medical expenditure, including  conveyance, attendant fee etc (During  the period of treatment

Rs.3,10,000/-

3. Loss of income during  hospitalization/treatment

Rs.3,08,160/-

4. Loss of future income Rs.15,72,000/-

5. Loss of happiness and loss of  amenities Rs.3,50,000/-

6. Loss of marriage prospects Rs.1,00,000/- 7. Future medical expenses Rs.5,50,000/-

IN TOTAL Rs. 33,10,160/-

8

Page 9

17. The above compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a.  

from the date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal till the date of  

payment,  

18. Accordingly,  we  set  aside  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  and  

allow the appeals in the above terms with no order as to costs.

…………………………………………CJI. (P. SATHASIVAM)

……………………………………………J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

……………………………………………J. (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI, APRIL  23 , 2014  

9