Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3764  OF 2017 ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 21856 OF 2014

LAL SINGH MARABI … APPELLANT

VERSUS

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

ORDER N.V. RAMANA, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, who was severely injured in a  motor  accident,  has  preferred  this  appeal

aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by

the  Principal  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Madhya

Pradesh at Jabalpur by its judgment and order dated

4th April, 2013.

3. Briefly  stated  the  undisputed  facts  are that  on  13th April,  2004  when  the  appellant  was

Page 2

2

travelling  in  a  mini  bus  from  Mandla  to  Bamhni,

being driven by Respondent No. 1, suddenly it turned

turtle at a place called Kishanpuri Ghat, resulting

in grievous injuries to his left leg. He was rushed

to  the  Medical  Hospital  at  Jabalpur  where  he

underwent  treatment  till  19th April,  2004.  As  his

condition  was  deteriorating,  he  was  referred  to

Victoria Hospital at Jabalpur where in order to save

his life his left leg had to be amputated from the

thigh portion and he remained there as an indoor

patient till 5th June, 2004.

4. Owing to the permanent disability caused on account of the amputation of his leg, the appellant

filed  a  claim  petition  before  the  Motor  Vehicle

Accident  Claims  Tribunal  seeking  compensation  of

Rs.10,10,000/-. The driver and owner of the bus were

made parties along with the insurance company. For

claiming the said amount, the appellant took a plea

that he was a professional driver with a monthly

Page 3

3

earning of Rs.4,000/- which he lost due to the 90%

disability sustained over the accident.

5. The  Tribunal  decided  the  claim  petition observing  that  (i)  the  driver  (Respondent  No.  2

herein) drove the vehicle negligently which caused

the accident; (ii) the claimant (appellant) suffered

serious  injuries  due  to  the  accident  and

consequently his left leg has been severed from the

upper  portion  of  thigh,  causing  permanent

disability; and (iii) that on the date and at the

time  of  the  accident,  the  driver  of  the  bus—

Respondent No. 2 herein, did not possess a valid

license  for  driving  the  vehicle.  The  Tribunal

observed that the claimant—appellant could not prove

the fact of his earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. by doing the

driving  job  as  he  did  not  produce  any  driving

license  or  authentic  evidence  to  establish  his

monthly  earnings.  The  Tribunal  came  to  the

conclusion that the annual income of the appellant

would have been Rs.15,000/- and the accident caused

Page 4

4

a 60% decrease in his work efficiency. The Tribunal,

therefore,  fixed  Rs.1,62,000/-  for  physical  and

mental  pain  and  compensation  for  the  future  by

applying  a  multiplier  of  ‘18’  in  view  of  the

appellant’s  age  being  29  at  the  time  of  the

accident,  besides  Rs.60,000/-  for  an  artificial

limb,  Rs.40,000/-  for  medical  expenses  and

Rs.13,000/-  towards  expenses  incurred  for  food,

travelling  etc.  The  Tribunal  thereby  directed  a

total compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- payable by the

driver and owner of the bus severally and jointly

together with interest @ 6% p.a. and exempted the

insurance company from liability.

6. Aggrieved  by  the  quantum  of  compensation ordered by the Tribunal exempting the liability of

the insurance company, the appellant approached the

High Court by way of a Miscellaneous Appeal. The

High Court, upon deeming the annual income of the

appellant  to  be  Rs.24,000/-  enhanced  the

compensation amount to Rs.2,44,800/- under the head

Page 5

5

‘permanent disability’ and awarded the total amount

of  Rs.3,57,800/-,  after  applying  a  multiplier  of

‘17’. Though the High Court agreed with the Tribunal

that the insurance company is not liable to bear the

burden of the awarded sum, in view of decision of

this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran

Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297, it directed National Insurance  Company  to  pay  the  awarded  sum  to  the

appellant first and recover the same from the driver

and owner of the bus.

7. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the parties. It is the contention of the appellant that

the Courts below have committed a grave error in not

considering the monthly income of the appellant at

par even with an unskilled worker whose minimum wage

in the State of Madhya Pradesh is about Rs.4,000/-

p.m. The appellant was the only earning member of

the  family,  who  lost  his  livelihood  due  to  the

accident  that  resulted  in  amputation  of  his  leg

resulting  in  a  90%  permanent  disability  and

Page 6

6

requiring him to spend about Rs.2.5 lakhs for fixing

an artificial limb. Learned counsel further argued

that while calculating the compensation amount the

Courts below did not correctly appreciate the loss

of  expectation  of  life,  loss  of  impairment  of

physiological functions, medical expenses, pain and

mental suffering of the appellant.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company  pleaded  that  the  present  appeal  is  filed

belatedly that at the instance of owner of the bus

against  whom  Respondent  No.  1  has  got  recovery

rights.  It  was  urged  that  only  with  an  ulterior

motive  to  prevent  the  insurance  company  from

proceeding with recovery, the owner of the bus got

this  appeal  filed  with  the  connivance  of  the

appellant.

9. Having  heard  learned  counsel  on  either side, this Court is of the opinion that there is no

denial of the fact that the appellant had suffered a

major  injury  in  the  accident  and  sustained  a

Page 7

7

permanent disability by the amputation of his left

leg. Consequently, the appellant, who was only 29

years old at the time of accident, has undergone

agony, both physically and mentally besides spending

money on his treatment and for the artificial limb.

It is clear from the medical certificate issued by

Dr. Naveen Kothari (PW-2) that due to the amputation

of  his  leg,  the  appellant  sustained  a  permanent

disability  of  90%.  We  find  from  the  impugned

judgment  that  the  Courts  below  have  reduced  the

permanent disability factor from 90% to 60%. We are

not satisfied with the reasoning of the Courts below

for reducing the permanent disability determined by

the Doctor to 60% on the ground that despite the

amputation of his left leg, the remaining body of

the  appellant  is  healthy.  Upon  appreciating  the

factual matrix of the case including the fact that

with the amputated leg the appellant cannot pursue

his livelihood as a driver or daily wage labourer

and taking into account the Doctor’s Certificate, we

Page 8

8

are of the considered opinion that the appellant has

sustained  a  90%  permanent  disability  due  to  the

accident.

10. Thus,  considering  the  appellant’s  annual income as Rs.24,000/- p.a., 90% of it would come to

Rs.21,600/- and applying the multiplier 17, he would

be entitled under the head of ‘permanent disability’

to  compensation  computed  at  Rs.  3,67,200/-

(i.e.Rs.21,600 multiplied by 17). In our view, the

appellant  is  also  entitled  to  get  Rs.1,00,000/-

instead of Rs.60,000/- as awarded by the High Court

towards the cost of the artificial limb.  

11. Taking  into  account  the  aforesaid figures, the total quantum of compensation amount

would stand enhanced from Rs. 3,57,800/- as awarded

by the High Court, to Rs. 5,20,200/- and we order

accordingly. Needless to say that   the  appellant

is  also  entitled  to receive interest at the rate

of 6% p.a. from the  date  of  filing  of  the

claim petition till realization of the amount. The

Page 9

9

insurer,  Respondent  No.1  shall  pay  the  awarded

amount  of  Rs.5,20,000/-  plus  interest  accrued

thereon  to  the  appellant  within  six  weeks  from

today, and recover the same from Respondent Nos. 2

& 3 severally and jointly.

12.  The  appeal  stands  allowed  accordingly with no order as to costs.

………………………………………………………CJI. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

……………………………………………………………J. (N.V. RAMANA)

……………………………………………………………J. (Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD)

NEW DELHI, FERUARY 15, 2017

Page 10

10

ITEM NO.5       COURT NO.1       SECTION IVA

Page 11

11

        S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21856/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  04/04/2013 in MA No. 4056/2006 passed by the High Court Of M.P. At Jabalpur)

LAL SINGH MARABI                 Petitioner(s)

                               VERSUS

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS  Respondent(s)

(with  appln.  (s)  for  c/delay  in  filing  SLP  and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report)

Date : 15/02/2017 This petition was called on for    hearing today.

CORAM :  

        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Page 12

12

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

        HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

For Petitioner(s)Mr. Chandra Mohan Anisetty,Adv.                         for Dr. Kailash Chand,AOR

For Respondent(s)Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Adv.

                Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the  following

O R D E R

Delay condoned.  Leave granted.

The  appeal  is  allowed,  in  terms  of  the Reportable signed order.

 (Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar) Assistant Registrar                     AR-cum-PS

[Reportable signed order is placed on the file]