RUDRA Vs DIV.MNGR,NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.&ANR.
Bench: G.S. SINGHVI,ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-002695-002695 / 2011
Diary number: 35766 / 2010
Advocates: V. N. RAGHUPATHY Vs
MEERA AGARWAL
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.33820/2010)
Rudra ...Appellant(s)
- Versus -
Divisional Manager, ...Respondent(s) National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
J U D G M E N T
GANGULY, J.
1. Application for deletion of respondent No.2
from the array of parties is allowed.
2. Leave granted
3. On 15.12.2002, at about 1.30 pm, the appellant
was walking on the road when a BMTC bus (bearing 1
No. KA-01-A-3638) came in high speed and dashed
against the appellant, as a result of which the
appellant sustained multiple injuries and was
admitted in hospital for operation and treatment.
4. The appellant was aged 25 years and was working
as a coolie. He filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
claiming Rs.4 lacs as compensation with interest @
18%. He also claimed that he was earning a monthly
income of Rs.4000/- p.m.
5. Apparently, when the appellant was admitted to
hospital immediately after the accident, he was
conscious and well oriented and his breath smelled
of alcohol. Hence, the respondent contended that
the accident occurred solely due to the negligence
of the appellant.
6. However, the Tribunal did not accept this
argument of the respondent. It held that merely
2
because the appellant had consumed alcohol did not
mean that the driver of the vehicle did not need to
drive the vehicle cautiously. Thus, the Tribunal
concluded that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
as a result of which the appellant sustained
injuries.
7. The Tribunal concluded that as the appellant
was a coolie, his daily earnings would be Rs.100/-
per day, as the appellant’s claim that he was
earning Rs.4000/- p.m. was unsupported by
documentary evidence. The Tribunal considered the
fact that the appellant had been in hospital for at
least a month and, therefore, it awarded an amount
of Rs.3000/- towards loss of income during
treatment period. The doctor had assessed
disability of the appellant’s left lower limb at
58% and that of the whole body at 29%. Considering
the nature of the injuries (fracture of the ankle
and foot), it awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and
3
suffering, Rs.2000/- towards medical expenses, and
Rs.3000/- towards nourishment. The Tribunal also
awarded global compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of amenities as the appellant could not
normally carry out his occupation with the weight
of the body on it. Thus, total compensation
amounted to Rs.40,000/-, payable at 8% p.a. rate of
interest.
8. On appeal before the High Court of Karnataka,
the Court took the view that assessment of
disability by the doctor of the left lower limb at
58% and the whole body at 29% appeared to be a bit
of an exaggeration. Thus, it reassessed the whole
body disability at 15% for calculating compensation
payable towards loss of future income. Accordingly,
adopting a multiplier of 18 since the appellant was
aged 25 years, it computed loss of future income
(which had not been awarded by the Tribunal at all)
at Rs.97,200/- (Rs.3000 X 12 X 18 X 15/100).
However, it enhanced compensation for pain and
4
suffering to Rs.20,000/-, Rs.5000/- for conveyance,
nourishing food and attendant charges, Rs.9000/-
towards loss of income during period of treatment
(taking income of appellant at Rs.3000/- p.m. for 3
months). Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal was
modified and compensation was enhanced to
Rs.1,48,200/-, with interest at 6% p.a.
9. Still dissatisfied with the compensation amount
awarded, the appellant filed the present appeal
before this Court. Having gone through the records
and after hearing the parties, we are of the view
that the appeal deserves to be allowed.
10. When the doctor had assessed whole body
disability at 29%, and the same was accepted by the
Tribunal, the High Court erred in rejecting the
same and instead of presuming disability of 15% of
the whole body. Hence, we re-compute loss of future
income by considering disability at 29%, which
5
amounts to Rs.1,87,920/- (Rs.3000 X 12 X 18 X
29/100).
11. The doctor, in his evidence, has also stated
that the nature of disability is such that the
appellant cannot work as a coolie or do any other
manual work. Hence, we award compensation for loss
of amenities to Rs.40,000/-, for pain and suffering
to Rs.30,000/-, for medical expenses to Rs.10,000/-
and for conveyance, nourishment and attendant
charges to Rs.20,000/-.
12. The break-up of compensation is as follows:
Pain and suffering - Rs.30,000/-
Loss of amenities - Rs.40,000/-
Medical expenses - Rs.10,000/-
Conveyance, nourishment and attendant
charges - Rs.20,000/-
Loss of future income - Rs.1,87,920/-
Loss of income during treatment - Rs.9,000/-
TOTAL - Rs.2,96,920/- 6
13. Thus, total compensation amounts to
Rs.2,96,920/-, which is rounded off to
Rs.3,00,000/-. The impugned judgment of the High
Court is hereby modified, awarding Rs.3,00,000/-
with interest of 6% p.a. on the enhanced sum,
payable from the date of the claim petition till
realization.
14. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
15. No order as to costs.
.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)
.......................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) March 18, 2011
7