NON-REPORTABLE

 IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6038 OF 2003

S. Kumar (Dead) Appellant(s)

VS.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &  Anr. Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari., J

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order

dated 21.06.2001, as passed in C.M.A. No.1101 of 1995 and Cross Objection

No. 70 of 1996, whereby the High Court of Judicature at Madras has modified the

award  dated  27.04.1995,  as  made  by  the  Motor  Accidents  Claims  Tribunal,

Chennai (II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in MACT O.P. No. 2932 of

1992.

2. In the impugned judgment and order dated 21.06.2001, the High Court has

made substantial downward revision of the amount of compensation awarded by

1

the  Tribunal to the  injured  claimant-appellant;  and  in  place  of  the  amount

awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 4,58,060/- together with interest @

15% p.a., has awarded a sum  of Rs. 2,11,060/- together with interest @ 9% p.a.

from the date of filing of the claim application. The High Court has made such

reduction  in  the  amount  of  compensation  awarded  by  the  Tribunal  after

disbelieving the case of 95% permanent partial disablement, as projected by the

claimant and accepted by the Tribunal; and has allowed compensation only with

reference to the injury of fracture of left thigh bone, as originally certified.   

3. The question in this appeal, therefore, is as to whether the High Court was

justified  in  modifying  the  award  and  reducing  the  amount  of  compensation

awarded by the Tribunal? The background aspects of the matter, so far relevant

for  the  question  at  hand,  may  be  noticed,  in  brief,  as  follows:

On  02.08.1992  at  about  05.30  p.m.,  the  claimant-appellant,  while  walking

alongside a road, sustained grievous injuries on being hit by an auto rickshaw

owned  by  the  respondent  no.  2  and  insured  by  the  respondent  no.  1.  The

appellant made the claim for compensation with the submissions, inter alia, that

at the time of accident, he was 25 years of age and was earning Rs. 2,750/- per

month while working as a mason. Apart from asserting rash and negligent driving

of the auto rickshaw in question, the appellant submitted that due to the accident,

he had sustained the injuries of fracture of left thigh bone and on left side of the

skull  as also other injuries in his stomach region and testis;  he remained in-

patient in the Government Hospital for 3 months and later on, he had to take

2

treatment as out-patient for another 3 months. The claimant further submitted

that he was again admitted to the hospital  where he remained in-patient until

25.12.1992 and operations were performed on his hip as also on testis, to bring

them back to the normal position. The claimant-appellant alleged that after the

accident, his left leg was shortened by 2”; that he was suffering from intermittent

headache and giddiness; and that due to the injuries, he was unable to do any

work, was unable to marry, and was not fit for marital life.   

4. As regards his alleged injuries and disablement, the appellant examined

two doctors in evidence namely, Dr. Sai Chandran as PW-1 and Dr. Thiagarajan

as PW-4. While PW-1 pointed out that after examination, he found the left leg of

the claimant-appellant shortened by 2” due to the fracture of upper portion of his

thigh bone; that he could not sit and stand freely; and that his hip movements

were reduced by 15o because of which, he could not do any hard labour. The

said doctor  had assessed the permanent  partial  disablement  of  the claimant-

appellant at 45%. However, in order to prove further disablement, the claimant

examined PW-4, who stated that on examination of the claimant-appellant, he

found fracture of left thigh bone and injury on skull; and that his left testis had not

come back to original position. The said doctor PW-4 even deposed to the extent

that  the  claimant-appellant  would  not  be  able  to  perform  intercourse;  and

purportedly assessed the permanent partial disablement at further 50%.  

3

5. The Tribunal, with reference to the testimony of the said two doctors and

as also the testimony of claimant-appellant, proceeded to award compensation to

the tune of Rs. 4,58,060/- in the following manner: The Tribunal awarded a sum

of  Rs.  31,000/-  towards  loss  of  earning  from 03.08.1992  to  31.07.1993;  Rs.

3,500/- towards travelling expenses; Rs. 6,360/- for nutrition and diet; Rs. 200/-

for damage to the dress material; Rs. 10,000/- towards medicines; Rs. 56,000/-

towards pain and suffering; Rs. 1,15,000/- towards permanent disablement and

Rs. 2,36,000/- towards future loss of earning. The Tribunal also awarded interest

@ 15% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application.

6. In appeal by the insurer, the High Court did not interfere with the amount of

compensation  awarded  towards  loss  of  earning,  travelling  and  dietary

expenditure, and dress material. However, the High Court found that there was

no  proof  towards  cost  of  medicines  and  hence,  disallowed  the  claim in  that

regard. As regards other aspects related with injury and disablement, the High

Court meticulously examined the evidence including the testimony of the doctors,

PW-1 and PW-4 and disbelieved the suggestions of PW-4, who had allegedly

examined the claimant-appellant  after  about  2½ years  of  the accident.   After

observing that at the initial stage, there had not been any indication of the alleged

scrotum injury as also the head injury, the High Court  pointed out its specific

reasons for disbelieving the suggestions put forward by the claimant-appellant

with PW-4, particularly with reference to the testimony of PW-1 in the following:-

4

“12. …The evidence of the doctor P.W. 1 is that because of the fracture in his left thigh bone the height of his left leg has been reduced by two inches and he is not able to sit and he cannot do heavy work and he has assessed the disability as 45%. He has given certificate Ex. P.1.  P.W.1 has examined the injured claimant on 26.6.1993 and issued that certificate after perusal of the case sheet of the claimant as inpatient. P.W. 1 specifically says that the claimant did not tell him that he had sustained any other injury except the one on his left hip and he did not sustain any injury on his head. Even though P.W. 3 the claimant specifically says that he sustained injury or his head also. P.W. 1’s evidence shows that the claimant did not tell him with regard to any there was no scrotum injury (sic). Ex. P.7 which was given after lapse of about 3 months shows that left side of scrotum was normal and right side was undescended testis with minimal Hydrocele and it also shows that it was not due to accident and for the minimal Hydrocele only surgery was done after a period of three months after the accident.  So,  it  is  crystal  clear  that  there  was  no  scrotum injury  and  nothing  to  the  scrotum was caused due  to  that accident. So, the evidence of P.W. 4 and the certificate issued by him with regard to the disability for the injury caused to the scrotum and private part are not reliable and no importance can be attached to them.....”       

7. The High Court, while rejecting the case of claimant-appellant regarding

the injury to scrotum and skull, reduced the compensation towards disablement

from Rs. 1,15,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-, towards pain and suffering from Rs. 56,000/-

to  20,000/-,  and  towards  future  loss  of  earning  from  Rs.  2,36,000/-  to

Rs.1,00,000/- while observing as under:-

“14. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 4, we are of the view that he is not speaking truth. He has not taken any x-ray with regard to the damage caused to the private part of the claimant. In the initial stage, after the accident, there was no whisper at all by the claimant with regard to injury sustained by him in his scrotum. Only in the year 1995, P.W. 4 examined

5

him and gave disability  certificate  for  50% for  the  damage caused to his scrotum. There is also no acceptable proof that because of this accident, his marital life was affected. For the foregoing discussions, we are quite unable to accept that the claimant has sustained 95% disability. There is no proof with regard to permanent disability caused to the claimant and he was deprived of  his  attending even to his  normal  work.  Of course,  he  has  sustained  fracture  on  his  thigh  and  other injuries...”

8. The  High  Court  also  reduced  the  rate  of  interest  as  awarded  by  the

Tribunal @ 15% p.a. and found it appropriate to award interest @ 9% p.a. with

reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum

v.   New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. : 2001 (2) SCC 9.

9. Seeking to assail the judgment of the High Court whereby, the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been reduced substantially, learned

counsel  for  the  appellant  has  strenuously  argued  that  the  High  Court  has

committed  a  serious  error  in  reducing  the  quantum  of  compensation  by

disbelieving the testimony of doctors who had thoroughly examined and treated

the appellant.  Learned counsel would argue that despite there being clear proof

of  multiple  injuries  suffered  by  the  appellant  and  his long drawn treatment,

the High Court  has gone too restrictive in not  awarding any amount  towards

medicines  and  in  reducing  drastically  the  amount  of  compensation  towards

disablement, loss of earning capacity and pain and sufferings. On the other hand,

learned counsel for the contesting respondent has duly supported the judgment

of the High Court.

6

10. Having heard learned counsel  for  the parties and having examined the

record, we are satisfied that the High Court has made downward revision of the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal  for cogent and convincing

reasons; and in the ultimate analysis, the amount awarded by the High Court

cannot be said to be too low or grossly inadequate so as to call for interference

by this Court.

11. On a bare look at the award of the Tribunal,  it  is but apparent that the

Tribunal merely summed up the alleged 45% permanent partial disablement of

the appellant, as initially certified by PW-1 (who had examined him immediately

after the accident) with 50% permanent partial disablement of the appellant, as

later on certified by PW-4 (who had allegedly examined him 2½ years after the

accident) and, in this manner, assessed the disablement to the extent of 95%.

The approach of the Tribunal had been suffering from obvious errors and infirmity

inasmuch  as  there  was  neither  any  basis  nor  any  reason  to  sum  up  the

percentage of disablement stated by the two doctors and to take it to be a case

of 95% permanent partial disablement. Moreover, the Tribunal had totally failed to

consider  that  the  suggestions  about  injury  to  the  skull  as  also  injury  to  the

scrotum were falsified by the testimony of the doctor PW-1, who had found the

only  injury  being  that  of  fracture  of  left  thigh  bone.  The  said  doctor  PW-1

specifically stated that the claimant did not tell him about any other injury except

the one on the left hip; and that the claimant did not sustain any injury on his

head. It appears from the testimony of the claimant-appellant that he allegedly

7

took treatment as regards scrotum in the months of November-December 1992,

but there is no evidence on record to co-relate any such ailment or deformity

concerning scrotum with the accident  in  question.  Therefore,  in  our view,  the

High Court  has been justified in rejecting the case of  95% permanent  partial

disablement and the suggestions about the injuries other than that on the left

thigh bone of the appellant.   

12. Moreover, a relevant feature of this case gets noticed per force and in view

of  indisputable  facts  available  on  record.  The  claimant-appellant  overtly

suggested in the claim application that  he had suffered injuries to his private

parts and at the age of 25 years, such injuries resulted in his inability to have the

bliss of marital life. The appellant has, unfortunately, expired during the pendency

of this appeal  and his legal representatives, being his wife, mother and three

children are substituted as appellants in his place.  The very extent of the family

left behind by the appellant, inclusive of his wife and three children, obviously

falsify his suggestions about inability of having marital  life. We do not wish to

elaborate further on this aspect of the matter; suffice it to observe for the present

purpose that the case of excessive injuries and disablement, as projected by the

claimant-appellant with reference to the testimony of PW-4 was bound to be, and

has rightly been, rejected by the High Court.

13. Coming to the question of just compensation, though it is noticed that the

High Court has substantially reduced the amount of compensation awarded by

8

the Tribunal but then, such a reduction was the natural consequence of rejection

of the case of 95% disablement. The High Court has, otherwise, examined the

entire evidence on record and, in the ultimate analysis, the amount awarded by

the  High  Court  at  Rs.  2,11,060/-  cannot  be  said  to  be  too  low  or  grossly

inadequate on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. In this view of the

matter,  some  restriction  by  the  High  Court  towards  loss  of  earning  or

disallowance of expenses of medicines, do not make out a case for interference

because, as observed, the ultimate award amount is not grossly inadequate in

the given set of facts and circumstances. As regards interest, the Tribunal had

been rather generous in awarding the same at an exorbitant rate of 15% p.a. that

was liable to be reduced. In fact, the High Court has yet allowed a comparatively

higher rate of interest at 9% p.a. We find absolutely no reason to consider any

upward revision in the amount of compensation awarded in this case by the High

Court.

14. For what has been discussed and observed hereinabove, this appeal fails

and is, therefore, dismissed.

...............................................J.          (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

          ..............................................J.

      (DINESH MAHESHWARI)   1

New Delhi  Dated: 18 February, 2019.

9