Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  8083 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.26872 of 2011)  

λR. Venkata Ramana & Anr. .....Appellants

        Versus

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.   .Respondents

J U D G M E N T

lANIL R. DAVE, J.   

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered by the Andhra Pradesh  

High Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016 of 2007 on 27th December, 2010,  

this appeal has been preferred on behalf of the claimants in a Motor Accident  

Claim Petition.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nut shell, are as under:  

1

Page 2

On account of an accident, which had taken place on 31st July, 2000,  

around 6 p.m., son of the appellants had suffered severe injuries.  He had to  

be hospitalized and operations had to be performed.  The injured was left  

with 80% disability due to the accident.  Looking at the nature of injuries  

suffered  by  the  injured,  a  claim  for  Rs.25,07,564/-  was  made  by  the  

appellants and the injured, who was also a claimant before the Tribunal but at  

present, possibly because of his inability, the appeal has been filed by the  

parents.

4. After considering the evidence and looking at the injuries suffered and  

physical condition of the injured, namely, Rajanala Ravi Krishna, who was  

hardly 17 years old at the time of the accident, by way of compensation, the  

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.18,75,800/- with interest @  7.5 % from the  

date of presentation of the petition till realization of the said amount.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, respondent No.1  

United India Insurance Company Ltd., filed Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016 of  

2007 praying that the amount of compensation be reduced as it was much on  

higher side.  After hearing the concerned counsel and looking at the evidence,  

the High Court allowed the civil misc.  appeal by reducing the amount of  

compensation  to  a  sum  of  Rs.12,45,800/-  with  interest  thereon  to  the  

claimants.  

2

Page 3

6. Being aggrieved by the reduction in the amount of compensation, the  

parents of the 17 years old injured student have approached this Court by way  

of this appeal.   

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had submitted that the  

Tribunal had awarded just and proper compensation which ought not to have  

been reduced by the High Court.  The learned counsel had taken us through  

the order passed by the Tribunal and the relevant evidence.  Upon perusal of  

the evidence, we find that the son of the appellants, as a result of the accident,  

is suffering from 80% permanent disability.  The Neurologist who had been  

examined  by  the  Tribunal  had  stated  that  there  was  no  chance  of  any  

improvement in the health of the injured.  Upon perusal of the evidence, we  

find that Rajanala Ravi Krishna, as a result of the accident, tracheotomy and  

other  surgeries  performed on  him,  he  has  practically  become  bedridden,  

except  for the fact  that  he can be moved in a  wheel chair.   He requires  

continuous nursing because he is unable to perform his day to day activities.  

In the circumstances, the learned counsel had submitted that the amount of  

compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper.  

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent  

Insurance  Company  had  submitted  that  the  Tribunal  had  awarded  huge  

amount of compensation to a person who was not having any income and was  

only  a  student,  whose  future  was  not  known to  any one.   In  the  said  

3

Page 4

circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the High Court had rightly  

considered the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma  

v. Delhi Road Transport  Corporation 2009(6) SCC 121 while awarding  

just amount of compensation.  He had supported the judgment delivered by  

the High Court and had submitted that the present appeal be dismissed.

9. Upon  hearing  the  learned  counsel  and  looking  at  the  impugned  

judgment and the order of the Tribunal as well as the evidence adduced on  

behalf of the claimants, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not at all  

lenient in the matter of awarding the compensation and the compensation  

awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper.  

10.  We have considered the facts and the injuries suffered by Rajanala  

Ravi  Krishna,  who  was  hardly  17  years  old  student  at  the  time  of  the  

accident.  We need not go into the negligence part of the driver because even  

in  the criminal proceedings it had been held that the driver of the vehicle was  

guilty of rash and negligent driving.   Upon perusal of the evidence, we find  

that the condition of Rajanala Ravi Krishna, after the accident has become  

very pathetic.  Evidence adduced by the Neurologist and other evidence also  

reveal that Rajanala Ravi Krishna shall not be in a position to speak for his  

life and shall not be in a position to do anything except breathing for his life,  

unless a miracle happens.  He would require care of a person every day so as  

to see that he is given food, bath etc. and so as to enable him even in the  

4

Page 5

matter of answering natural call.  It would be worth producing the reaction of  

the Tribunal after appreciating evidence of the doctor and the said portion of  

the Tribunal  痴 order has been even reproduced by the High Court in its  

judgment:   

“It  is  not in dispute that  because of this accident the injured  petitioner who appears to be an active and bright student from  Exs.A.481 to A.487, he lost all the function of his all four limbs  on  account  of  the  severe  injuries  sustained  by  him.  I  have  myself questioned PW.2 to find out the graveness of the injuries  that are sustained by the injured third petitioner.  It has been the  evidence  of  PW.2  that  there  is  no  possibility of  the  injured  petitioner regaining normal power of all the four limbs inspite of  any amount of treatment.  The patient require physio therapy  throughout his  life and assistance  of  some person for  all  his  activities.  PW.2 has also stated that it is difficult to say even by  the time he was giving evidence whether the patient could regain  his voice, PW.2 further stated that the patient requires regular  medication  of  at  least  Rs.500/-  per  day  for  his  subsistence.  PW.2 also  stated  the patient  requires  some bodies  assistance  even for taking food and finally PW.2 stated that the patient is  medically described as in a 砺 egitiative stateand patient is called  as 都 pastic quadric paresys

11. Looking  at  the  aforestated  facts  which  even  the  High  Court  had  

noticed,  we feel that the Tribunal can not be said to have awarded more  

amount by way of compensation.  

12. From the order of the tribunal, we find that the appellants had in fact  

proved  that  they  had  spent  Rs.3,49,128/-  towards  medical  expenses  for  

treating  their  son.   They  had  to  purchase  certain  instruments  worth  

Rs.58,642/- for making life of their son comfortable and Rs.31,000/- had been  

5

Page 6

spent towards nursing and  Rs.1,37,000/- had to be spent for Physiotherapist.  

Looking at the fact that Rajanala Ravi Krishna will have to remain dependant  

for his whole life on someone and looking at the observations made by the  

Tribunal, which have been reproduced hereinabove, in our opinion, his life is  

very  miserable  and  there  would  be  substantial  financial  burden  on  the  

appellants for the entire life of their injured son.  At times it is not possible to  

award compensation strictly in accordance with the law laid down as in a  

particular case it may not be just also.    We are hesitant to say that it is a  

reality of life that at times life of an injured or sick person becomes more  

miserable for the person and for the family members than the death.  Here is  

one such case where the appellants, even during their retired life will have to  

take care of their son like a child especially when they would have expected  

the son to take their care.

13. Though, the High Court has rightly followed the principle laid down in  

the case of Sarla Verma (supra), in our opinion, the amount of compensation  

awarded by the Tribunal is more just.  The Tribunal awarded a lump sum of  

Rs.10  lacs  and the  amount of  expenditure  incurred by the  appellants  for  

treating  their  son.   The  total  amount  awarded  by  the  Tribunal  was  

Rs.18,75,800/-  which, in our opinion, is not too much and in our opinion, the  

said amount should be awarded to the appellants.

6

Page 7

14. In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the judgment delivered by  

the  High Court  and  restore  the  order  of  the  Tribunal.   The  amount  of  

compensation determined by the Tribunal along with interest @ 7.5 % from  

the date of presentation of the claim petition till its realization shall be paid to  

the appellants.

15. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.    

                           …...........................................J.

                                                (ANIL R. DAVE)

                           …...........................................J.

                                                      (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi September 17, 2013  

7