Page 1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.5520 OF 2013     (Arising out of SLP(C)No.14794 OF 2012)      

G.RAVINDRANATH @ R.CHOWDARY              .......APPELLANT

VERSUS

E.SRINIVAS & ANR                        ......RESPONDENTS       

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Leave granted.

This appeal is one of the several such cases which the  

victims  of  accidents  are  compelled  to  file  because  the  

compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal  

and/or the High Court is abysmally inadequate or tragically  

disproportionate to his/her suffering.

The appellant, who was 19 years old at the relevant  

time  and  was  assisting  his  father  in  agricultural  

operations, suffered grievous injuries in an accident which  

occurred on 31.10.2000 when respondent No.1 reversed Tipper  

No. APH 5971 in a rash and negligent manner without care and  

without signal and dashed against the appellant. The rear  

tyre of the Tipper caused fracture in the pelvic region of  

the  appellant.  He  was  initially  treated  at  Bhandari  

Hospital, Raichur. Later, he was taken to Nizam’s Institute  

- 1 -

Page 2

of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad (NIMS). The doctors at NIMS  

diagnosed  that  the  appellant  had  sustained  pelvic  and  

urethral injuries (total urethral rupture).  

The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the  

Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988  and  prayed  for  award  of  

compensation under the following heads:

“1. Annexure-I  Medical  expenses incurred  

65,399.00

2. Annexure-II  Hospitalization  charges incurred  

42,113.00

3. Annexure-III Mess and Lodging  charges

31,555.00

4. Annexure-IV  Transportation  charges

74,540.00

5. Damages, physical and mental  shock,  pains,  sufferings  suffered  by  claimant  and  likely to suffer in future

2,00,000.00

6. Damages  for  loss  of  amenities,  life  including  loss of marriage, cannot sit  and walk

5,00,000.00

7. Damages  for  loss  of  expectation of life

2,00,000.00

8. Frustration,  hardship,  inconveniences,  disappointment, mental shock  in  life,  dejection  and  unhappiness in future life

1,50,000.00

9. Loss of earnings 2,80,000.00 10. Loss of income to the parents  

of the claimant. 2,00,000.00

11. Future medication, hospital- ization expenses.

3,00,000.00

Grand Total 20,43,607.00”

The  appellant  pleaded  that  he  was  a  student  of  PUC  

second  year  and  was  earning  Rs.3,500/-  per  month  by  

- 2 -

Page 3

extending  help  to  his father in agricultural operations  

at Amareshwara Camp. Some of the averments contained in the  

claim petition are extracted below:

“The claimant was studying in PUG IInd year on the  date of this illegible. He was helping his father in the  agriculture  operations  since  as  family  they  own  8  acres of irrigated land at Amareshwara camp include  other similar land of extent of 20 acres taken under  lease basis. The accident has left him as a person of  impotence since it  was diagnosed he will  have the  erectile  dis-function  throughout  his  life  by  making  him unfit for any marital life. The claimant was con- tributing the service to his parents and agriculture  activities to the extent of Rs.3,500/- p.m. including  his absorption in the dairy farm being maintained by  his mother. The claimant's prospects of better stud- ies  and  good  employment  have  disappeared.  The  parents of the claimant have lost the agriculture in- come on account of their compulsion to accompany  him. The claimant suffered permanent disability and  he is still undergoing treatment. He experiences se- vere pain and inconvenience in passing urine and he  is  undergoing  series  of  surgical  operations.  He re- quires medical attention for rest of life as he needs  constant care. He needs the attendance of other per- sons to be looked after. He suffered loss of expecta- tion of life and he is now compelled to lead agonizing  and dejected life. The parents of claimant are now  finding  extreme difficult  to arrange for  his  further  treatment by, abandoning their agriculture and other  operations and works.  The clamant is  put to sepa- ratism marital life as he cannot marry.

  (emphasis supplied)

The  owner,  the  driver  and  the  insurance  company  

(respondent No.2 herein) were proceeded ex-parte because no  

one appeared on their behalf. However, on an application  

filed by respondent No.2, the ex-parte proceedings were set  

aside qua that respondent and it was given an opportunity to  

file  the  written  statement.  By  taking  advantage  of  the  

- 3 -

Page 4

liberty  given  by  the  Tribunal,  respondent  No.2  filed  

objections to contest the appellant’s claim on all possible  

counts.

On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed  

the following issues:

“1. Whether the claimant proves that he met with  accident  on  31.10.2000  at  about  10.30  AM  at  Amareshwara Camp due to the rash and negligent  driving of Respondent No.1 who caused the accident  while taking reverse of his Tipper bearing No.APH  5971?

2. Whether  the  claimant  further  proves  his  medical treatment-expenses and also his disability  along with loss of income and his future treatment  as averred in para-1 of the claim petition?

3. Does the Respondent No.3 proves that he is  not  liable  to  pay  the  compensation  since  Respondent  No.1  was  driving  the  said  vehicle  without DL and also due to violation of policy  conditions?

4. Whether  the  claimant  is  entitled  for  compensation? If so, how much and from whom?”

The  appellant  examined  himself  as  PW1,  Dr.P.V.L.N.  

Murthy  as  PW2,  Dr.  Sudhakar  Krishnamurthy  as  PW3  and  

produced documents, which were marked as Exhibits P.1 to  

P.18.  On behalf of respondent No.3, only one witness was  

examined as RW1 and one document, i.e., the insurance policy  

was produced as Exhibit R1.

The  Tribunal  relied  upon  the  contents  of  the  First  

Information  Report  and  the  statement  of  the  appellant  

(P.W.1),  who  gave  vivid  description  of  the  accident  and  

- 4 -

Page 5

whose testimony was not shaken in the cross-examination and  

held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent  

driving of Tipper by its driver.  The Tribunal then referred  

to the evidence relating to the appellant’s treatment at  

Bhandari Hospital, Raichur and NIMS, Hyderabad and held:

“Therefore, I am of the clear opinion that the  claimant has sustained fracture of pelvic region,  and  he  subsequently  developed  all  the  above  handicaps due to non-passing of urine by natural  passage and his extensive treatment has also not  cured him for the said accidental injury.  PW.2  and 3 who have treated the claimant extensively in  NIMS Hospital at Hyderabad, have clearly deposed  that  the  claimant  has  now  erectile  dysfunction  (impotence) and he needs follow up treatment for 5  to 10 years in future.  Therefore, under this back  ground, the claimant is entitled for Rs.30,000/-  for fracture of pelvic region.”

The  Tribunal  awarded  Rs.75,000/-  towards  medical  

expenses  and  Rs.10,000/-  for  transportation,  lodging  and  

boarding  and  conveyance  expenses.   The  Tribunal  did  not  

accept the appellant’s assertion that he was a student of  

PUC-II by observing that he has not produced any document to  

substantiate the same. The Tribunal also declined to rely  

upon  the  appellant’s  statement  regarding  his  income  and  

observed that his notional income could be taken as Rs.600/-  

per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses,  

the Tribunal held that the appellant’s net income would be  

Rs.4,800/-  per  annum.   The  Tribunal  awarded  Rs.50,000/-  

towards disability due to erectile dysfunction, Rs.25,000/-  

for  future  treatment  and  other  unforeseen  expenses,  

- 5 -

Page 6

Rs.10,000/-  towards  pain  and  suffering  and  Rs.10,000/-  

towards doctors’ fees, vehicle expenses etc.  

On an appeal filed by the appellant, the High Court  

took cognizance of his statement about the age, educational  

qualification and the fact that he was assisting his father  

in agricultural operations and held that it would be just  

and proper to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the  

injuries  suffered  by  the  appellant  and  an  additional  

compensation  of  Rs.1,50,000/-.  The  High  Court  awarded  

additional amount of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of medical expenses  

and  another  sum  of  Rs.25,000/-  towards  transportation  

charges,  nourishment,  attendants  charges,  etc.   This  is  

evinced from paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment  

under challenge, which are extracted below:

“11.  In  a  case  of  this  nature,  when  his  limbs  and  hands are not affected, his ability to earn is not af- fected.  But  the  fact  remains,  at  the  prime  of  his  youth, he has become impotent. Therefore, the com- pensation of Rs.50,000/- under the heading of erec- tile  dysfunction  is  certainly  on  the  lower  side.  In  some what  similar  situation  in  the  year  1999,  the  Apex Court had awarded a sum of Rs.1.00,000/- and  now the accident has taken place nearly five years  thereafter and we are awarding compensation nearly  after eleven years. Therefore, in our view, the just  amount  of  compensation to  be awarded under  the  said heading is Rs.2,00,000/- and the additional com- pensation is Rs.1,50,000/-.

12.  Though  the  Tribunal  has  awarded  a  sum  of  Rs.75,000/-  towards  medical  expenses,  it  has  not  taken into consideration other bills produced and the  treatment appears to be continuous. Though another  sum  of  Rs.25,000/-  is  awarded  towards  future  ex- penses, we are of the view that towards medical ex-

- 6 -

Page 7

penses - past and future, another sum of Rs.25,000/-  would be an appropriate compensation.

13. Similarly, the evidence on record shows, for tak- ing treatment the claimant has to leave Raichur to  go to Hyderabad on many occasions. In that context,  the amount  of  compensation     awarded towards  transportation  charges,     nourishment,  attendant  charges, is on the lower side and we deem it just and  proper  to  award  a  sum  of  Rs.25,000/-  under  the  aforesaid head.

14. The amount of compensation awarded under the  heading of pain and suffering, having regard to the  nature of injury and the number of days he has taken  treatment, appears to be on the lower side. There- fore, we award an additional amount of Rs.25,000/-  under the aforesaid head".

We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  

carefully perused the record.   

It is settled law that compensation in personal injury  

cases should be determined under the following heads:

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

(i)  Expenses  relating  to  treatment,  hospitalisation,  

medicines,  transportation,  nourishing  food  and  

miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured  

would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent  

disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

- 7 -

Page 8

Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence  

of the injuries.

(v)  Loss  of  amenities  (and/or  loss  of  prospects  of  

marriage).

(vi) Loss  of  expectation  of  life  (shortening  of  normal  

longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be  

awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only  

in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical  

evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that  

compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b),  

(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on  

account  of  permanent  disability,  future  medical  expenses,  

loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and  

loss of expectation of life.

In Ibrahim v. Raju (2011) 10 SCC 634, this Court took  

cognizance of the plight of the victim of road accidents and  

observed:

“The sufferings of the dependants of those who are  killed in motor accidents and the survivors who are  disabled are manifold. Sometime these can be mea- sured in terms of money but most of the times it is  not possible to do so. If an individual is disabled as a  result of road accident, the cost of treatment, care  and rehabilitation is  likely  to be very high.  A very  large number of people involved in motor accidents  are  pedestrians,  children  and  women  and,  on  ac- count of sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabili- ties, majority of them are unable to engage compe-

- 8 -

Page 9

tent lawyers for putting their cause before the Tri- bunals  and  the  courts.  The  insurance  companies,  with whom the vehicles involved in the accidents are  insured always have the advantage of assistance of  legally trained mind (law officers and panel lawyers).  They contest the claim petitions by raising all possi- ble  technical  objections  for  ensuring  that  their  clients are either completely absolved or their liabil- ity is minimised and in the process, adjudication of  the claims filed by the victims and/or their legal rep- resentatives is delayed for years together. At times,  the delay in disposal of the claim cases and litigation  expenses make the award of compensation meaning- less for survivors of the accidents and/or families of  the victims.”

The Court also referred to the judgments in Ward v.  

James  (1965)  1  All  ER  563  (CA),  R.D.Hattangadi  v.  Pest  

Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551, Nizam’s Institute  

of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1,  

Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422, Arvind Kumar  

Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254,  

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 and enhanced the  

compensation from Rs.1,89,440/-  to Rs.6 lakhs. The factual  

matrix of that case and the factors considered by this Court  

for awarding enhanced compensation to the appellant in that  

case are contained in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the judgment,  

which are reproduced below:

“17. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant  had produced substantive evidence to prove that as  a result of the accident he had suffered 8 grievous  injuries including fracture of pelvis and he had to re- main in the hospital for one month and a half; that  he was treated by Dr. Anil K. Bhat, Assistant Profes- sor, Orthopaedics and Dr. Joseph Thomas, Professor  of Urology and that on account of grievous injuries  he was unable to continue his studies. In his deposi-

- 9 -

Page 10

tion, Dr. Joseph Thomas categorically stated that the  appellant will have to undertake life-long treatment  for recurrence of urethral strictures and consequen- tial  dysfunction  due to  fracture  of  pelvis.  Unfortu- nately, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court ad- verted to this part of the evidence and omitted to  award compensation for the expenses likely to be in- curred by the appellant for future treatment.

18. One  can  reasonably  expect  that  the  appellant  who was only 18 years old at the time of accident  would live for at least next 50 years.  The Tribunal  awarded Rs 20,340 for expenses incurred by the ap- pellant for treatment taken by him in the hospital.  Although, Dr. Thomas did not indicate the approxi- mate expenditure likely to be incurred by the appel- lant and his family for future treatment, keeping in  view the nature of injuries and the fact that he will  have to take treatment for the remaining life, it will  be  reasonable  to  infer  that  he  will  be  required  to  spend a minimum of Rs 1000 per month for future  treatment,  which would necessarily  include fees of  the  doctors,  medicines,  transportation,  etc.  In  the  absence of concrete evidence about the anticipated  expenditure, we think that ends of justice will be met  if  the  appellant  is  awarded  a  sum  of  Rs  2  lakhs  which, if deposited in a fixed deposit, would earn an  interest of Rs 14,000 to 16,000 per annum.

19. On account of the injuries suffered by him, the  prospects of the appellant’s marriage have consider- ably reduced.  Rather,  they are extremely bleak. In  any case, on account of the fracture of pelvis, he will  not be able to enjoy the matrimonial life. Therefore,  the  award  of  Rs  50,000  under  this  head  must  be  treated as wholly inadequate.  In the facts and cir- cumstances of the case, we feel that a sum of Rs 2  lakhs should be awarded to the appellant for loss of  marriage prospects and enjoyment of life.

20. The  compensation  awarded  for  loss  of  future  earning on account of permanent partial disablement  is ex facie unreasonable. Respondent 3 did not pro- duce any evidence to controvert the appellant’s as- sertion that on account of the injuries suffered in the  accident, he had to abandon his studies. The conse- quences which followed were extremely grave inas- much as he lost all opportunities for making a career  in future. The prospects of the appellant’s marriage  are extremely bleak. Therefore, a sum of Rs 2 lakhs  deserves to be awarded under these heads.”

- 10 -

Page 11

In Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Allinace Insurance  

Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, this Court observed:

“The compensation is usually based upon the loss of  the claimant’s earnings or earning capacity, or upon  the loss of particular faculties or members or use of  such members, ordinarily in accordance with a defi- nite schedule.  The courts  have time and again ob- served that the compensation to be awarded is not  measured by the nature, location or degree of the in- jury, but rather by the extent or degree of the inca- pacity  resulting  from the  injury.  The Tribunals  are  expected to make an award determining the amount  of compensation which should appear to be just, fair  and proper.

The  term  ‘disability’,  as  so  used,  ordinarily  means loss or impairment of earning power and has  been held not to mean loss of a member of the  body. If the physical efficiency because of the  injury has substantially impaired or if he is un- able to perform the same work with the same ease  as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy  work which he was able to do previous to his in- jury, he will be entitled to suitable compensa- tion. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on  the basis of the character of the disability as  partial or total, and as temporary or permanent.  No definite rule can be established as to what  constitutes partial incapacity in cases not cov- ered  by  a  schedule  or  fixed  liabilities,  since  facts will differ in practically every case.”

In  Kavita  v.  Deepak  (2012)  8  SCC  604,  the  Court  

referred to earlier precedents and held:

“In the light of the principles laid down in the afore- mentioned cases, it is suffice to say that in determin- ing the quantum of compensation payable to the vic- tims  of  accident,  who  are  disabled  either  perma- nently or temporarily, efforts should always be made  to  award  adequate  compensation  not  only  for  the  physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of  earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy  amenities,  which would have been enjoyed but for  the  disability  caused  due  to  the  accident.  The  

- 11 -

Page 12

amount awarded under the head of loss of earning  capacity  are  distinct  and  do  not  overlap  with  the  amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of en- joyment of life or the amount awarded for medical  expenses.”

We  may  now  revert  to  the  case  in  hand.  In  his  

statement, the appellant had vividly described the injuries  

suffered by him, the treatment taken in Bhandari Hospital,  

Raichur and NIMS, Hyderabad as also the expenses incurred  

for  the  treatment,  loss  of  education  and  income  in  the  

following words:

1. ..........Due to impact the rear tyre of the  tipper caused me grievous injury at the pelvic re- gion and the said injury was internal. After the  accident  I  fell  down  and  was  in  conscious.  My  father who was with the me at that time, immedi- ately admitted me to Bhadari Hospital Raichur. Due  to the internal injury the urine was stopped and  it was extracted by catheter. My father was ad- vised to take me for further treatment at Hydera- bad Accordingly I was taken to Nizam Hospital Hy- derabad on 1-11-2000. The doctor on my examination  came to the conclusion that I sustained fracture  of pelvis and total rupture of urethra. In the  said hospital also I was not passing the urine and  it was extracted by catheter. I was advised to  come after 3 weeks to under go operation and also  the RGU and HCU test. Thereafter I returned to Am- areshwar Camp and during that period I was not  passing my urine naturally and also I was unable  to move. I was also getting severe pains in that  is region. I was passing my urine and stool on ray  bed only. After 3 weeks I was taken to Nizam Hos- pital by my father. On 1-12-2002 and I was in the  Hospital upto 4-12-2000 for above tests. Again I  went to the Hospital on 18.12.2000, and the opera- tion was not conducted, since the same has to be  undergone only after observation of results of RGU  and MCU tests. Again I went to the Hospital on  27.1.2001 and at that time I was not passing the  urine naturally and I was in lot of pains and was  unable to stand and move. The RGU and MCU Tests  were done on 31-1-2001. The doctor advised me that  

- 12 -

Page 13

my urethra is completely damaged and he asked me  to come after one month for operation of elect- ively operation. The doctors extracted my urine by  SPC test since it was not coming through catheter.  Again I went to the said hospital on 1.3.2001 and  I  was  operated  on  20-3-2001.  I  have  undergone  transpubic end to urethroplasty. Due to the injury  I developed erectable unction and the doctors sug- gested me that the same cannot be cured in the  near future. The doctors have mentioned the said  disability in, their medical records. Subsequently  I  went  for  further  treatment  on  25.4.2001,  16.5.2001, 11-6-2001 and 23-7-2001, 10.8-2001, 20- 8-2001, 3-9-2001, 5-9-2001 and 15-9-2001. On all  these days I went to Hyderabad in a hired jeep  from Amareshwar Camp and I have paid Rs.5000 to  Rs.6000 per trip. I have produced those hire bills  in this court. Now the catheter is removed only  before one month back.

2.  In  between  the  period  of  treatment  had  the  swelling of my private part. Now also I am going  to Nizam Hospital Hyderabad for my treatment as  advised. Now also I have pain in the pelvic region  and now also I find it very difficult to pass my  urine naturally.

3. At the time of accident was studying in PUC II  year (commerce) in Kalmath College Manvi, and the  said college is about 15 KM from Amareshwar Camp.  I used to attend to my college by a bus on Student  Pass.

4. I was also assisting my father in my agricul- tural work after my college hours, My father has 8  acres of land (irrigated), at Amareshwar Camp. I  was also vending the milk from the 6 she buffalo  which were maintained by my family. Now I am un- able to assist my father in agricultural work and  also in milk vending due to ray pain and injury in  the pelvic region. I was forced to discontinue my  studies due to the said factor. I was contributing  about Rs.4000 under my services to my family.

5. The doctors have also ruled out my marriage due  to pelvic injury and also erectile dysfunction. I  am also advised to future long treatment. Now I am  maintained by my parents, and due to the above ac- cident my life has become dejected.”

In  cross-examination,  the  counsel  appearing  for  

- 13 -

Page 14

respondent No.2 did make laboured attempt to discredit the  

testimony  of  the  appellant  but  he  firmly  withstood  his  

ground and reiterated the facts relating to accident, his  

injuries, pain and suffering and the expenses incurred under  

various  heads.  It  is  quite  interesting  to  note  that  the  

appellant  was  not  cross-examined  on  the  issue  of  his  

educational qualification and the assistance provided by him  

to his father in doing agriculture. Therefore, that part of  

the testimony also remained unshaken.

PW-2 - Dr. P.V.L.N. Murthy, Professor of Urology and  

H.O.D. of Urogoly, NIMS gave detailed description of the  

nature of injuries and the treatment given to the appellant  

in the following words:

“On 1-11-2000 the  patient  was  admitted  on  emer- gency ward under the care of emergency Medical de- partment  or  the  poetics  ward/Urology.  An  initial  emergency treatment was given and discharged on  3.11.2000 with advise to review in urology O.P and  Ortho O.P after three weeks. By the time he was ad- mitted here he was with a SPC through which Urine  was collected by a bag/ he was unable to pass urine  via natural passage. The patient was admitted back  on 27.1.2001 as per advise and we discharged him  on 31-1-2001. During his admission he was treated  for infection & fever (U.T.L.) and special X-ray pro- cedures (R.G.U 85 M.C.U) were conducted to evalu- ate the stricture. The length of the stricture evaluate  the strictures. The length of the stricture was 3 to 4  centimeters and urinary passage was blocked com- pletely. By history of the patient it was know that he  was suffering from erectile dysfunction be cause of  injury (Trauma).

He was admitted on 21-3-2001 and operated for the  Traumatic  stricture  Urethra,  he  under  went  transpubic urithroplasty. The stricture length was  3 to 4 centimeters and there was extensive callous  

- 14 -

Page 15

which  was  removed.  Postoperatively  patient  had  wound infection which was treated. After  removing  the Unwarily Catheter / Cystoscopy was performed  and  adhesions and  granucalation tissue  were re- moved and catheter reinstated. He was discharged  on 21.4.2001 to review back in urology O.P. after  one week for cathetal removal.

After cathetral removal patient passed urine and  readmitted on 16-5-2001 for the management of re- currence  of  the  stricture.   He  under  went  VIU  (Visual Internal Urithrotonomy) endoscopic opera- tion for the recurrence of tine stricture. He was  discharged on 23-5-2001 for the removal of the Ur- othril cathotic. He was called back to O.P. and  catheter was removed, and he passed urine satis- factorily.

He was re-admitted on 11-6-2001 for narrowing of  the urinary stream die to recurrence of the stric- ture.  He  under  went  endoscope  report  operation  (VIU) and advised him to perform self dilatation.  AS the nature of the injury is severe the results  of  the primary  operation (Urithroplast)  was ex- plained  to the  patient required  multiple opera- tions and continuous fallow at periodical inter- vals because the initial trauma was severe and the  results of operation will not be satisfactory in  this type of injuries. Patient developed ere tile  dysfunction following trauma. This could be due to  impairment in blood supply or nerve supply to the  penis.

Ex. P. 5 which was already marked is the cut pa- tient record shows about the regular and period- ical visit and follow-up. Whenever a procedure was  under taken he was advised to take medicines for  two to three weeks.

Most of the visits he was accompanied with his  father.

Totally  there  are  13  X-rays  which  were  already  marked as Ex. P-10 are pertaining to pelvic frac- ture and traumatic stricture of the Urethra. Some  of the X-rays are related to post operation condi- tion. How I see already marked Ex. P-ll which is  the outpatient card dt. 11-12-2002 containing past  operative follow-up after one year of self dilata- tion and erectile disjunction. Patient was passed  urine satisfactorily with self dilatation. His ur- ine  flow  rate  was  peak  flow  31.3  average  flow  

- 15 -

Page 16

16.3. He complained absence of nocturnal erections  since  the accident  there was  minimum tuniscence  after sexual arosal. Regiscan and Papavarin (PIPE)  were advised to evaluate erectile dysfunction at  an endrology centre.

xxx xxx xxx

For erectile disjunction he might retire if he is  willing prosthetic penile implantation which is an  artificial erection. It is an expensive operation  and fraught with complications.”

In  cross-examination,  nothing  could  be  elicited  by  

Dr.P.V.L.N.Murthy  which  may  cast  doubt  on  his  testimony  

regarding the nature of injuries and treatment given to the  

appellant by NIMS.  

PW-3  –  Dr.  V.Krishnammurty,  Andrologist  and  

Microsurgeon described the test conducted on the appellant.  

He denied the suggestion that the certificates Exhibits P-13  

to P-16 and Exhibits P-16 (a) to (c) were false.  

From  the  testimony  of  three  witnesses,  it  is  

established that as a result of accident the appellant had  

suffered grievous injuries in the pelvic region and he has  

become impotent. It is also established that he has already  

undergone multiple surgeries and will have to take treatment  

in institutes like NIMS for at least 10 years.

Unfortunately,  the  Motor  Accident  Claims  Tribunal,  

Raichur did not give due weightage to the evidence produced  

by the appellant and awarded meager compensation and that  

too by overlooking the documentary evidence produced by the  

- 16 -

Page 17

appellant regarding the expenses incurred by him at Bhandari  

Hospital, Raichur and NIMS at Hyderabad.  The High Court  

also failed to properly analyse and evaluate the evidence  

produced by the appellant and did not adequately enhanced  

the compensation determined by the Tribunal.

In our view, the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,20,000/-  

towards  the  expenses  incurred  in  the  treatment  including  

hospitalization  charges,  mess  and  lodging  charges,  

transportation, etc. For future medical expenses including  

hospitalization,  medicines,  attendant  charges,  etc.,  the  

appellant is entitled to Rs.6 lakhs. For pain, suffering and  

trauma, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3 lakhs.  

For  loss  of  amenities  and  prospects  of  marriage,  the  

appellant is entitled to Rs.4 lakhs. For loss of expectation  

of  life  and  loss  of  future  earning,  the  appellant  is  

entitled to a sum of Rs.5 lakhs.

In  the  result,  the  appeal  is  allowed,  the  impugned  

judgment is set aside and it is held that the appellant is  

entitled  to  total  compensation  of  Rs.20,20,000/-  (rupees  

twenty lakhs twenty thousand only) with interest at the rate  

of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition  

till the date of actual payment.

Since the offending vehicle was insured with respondent  

No.2 and no evidence was produced by it to prove that the  

driver was not having any valid licence or that there was  

- 17 -

Page 18

any breach of the insurance policy, respondent No.2 is held  

liable to pay the enhanced compensation and interest to the  

appellant. The needful must be done within a period of eight  

weeks by getting a demand draft prepared in his name from a  

nationalized bank.  

If  respondent  No.2  has  already  paid  the  

compensation  awarded  by  the  Tribunal  and  enhanced  

compensation awarded by the High Court then it shall pay the  

balance amount i.e. the enhancement granted by this Court  

along with interest within eight weeks from today by getting  

a  demand  draft  prepared  in  the  appellant’s  name  from  a  

nationalized bank.   

               .......................J.                           (G.S.SINGHVI)             

 .........................J.  

         (V. GOPALA GOWDA)

NEW DELHI; JULY 1, 2013.

- 18 -

Page 19

- 19 -