SUBULAXMI Vs M.D. T.NADU STATE TRANSP.CORP.
Case number: C.A. No.-007750-007750 / 2012
Diary number: 36202 / 2011
Advocates: Vs
B. BALAJI
Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7750 OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 479 of 2012)
Subulaxmi ...Appellant
Versus
M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation & Another ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant as claimant filed an application under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity
`the Act’) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Srivilliputtur (for short `the tribunal’) forming the subject
matter of MCOP No. 244 of 1999, putting forth a claim of
Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained
Page 2
by her in a motor vehicle accident. Her claim petition was
tried along with the petition preferred by one Mrs.
Muthammal, the applicant in MCOP No. 245 of 1999.
3. The facts which are essential to be exposited are that
on 13th March, 1998, the claimant-appellant, aged about
30 years, a match industry worker while travelling in a bus
bearing registration number TN 59-N0912 belonging to the
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division
(V), the respondent No. 2 before the tribunal, met with an
accident with another bus bearing registration number TN
59-N0912 belonging to the Madurai Division (I) of the said
Corporation, the respondent No. 1 therein. The accident
occurred because of careless and negligent driving of the
drivers of both the vehicles. In the accident, the claimant
suffered grievous injuries which eventually resulted in the
amputation of left leg below knee and abrasion in right
shoulder and later amputation of right foot. It was averred
that she was earning a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month at the
time of accident and remained in the hospital for a period
of five and half months. Computing the amount
expended, pain and suffering, incapacity to have any
2
Page 3
future income and the deprivation of other amenities of
life and future comforts she claimed a sum of
Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation. The tribunal granted
Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation by award dated
22.10.2002 and fastened the liability on both the
respondents. It is necessary to state here that the tribunal
had awarded Rs.86,000/- towards permanent disability
assessing the same at 86%, Rs.14,000/- towards pain and
suffering, Rs.66,000/- on the head of loss of future income,
Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards
extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- for loss of income during
the treatment period and Rs.4,000/- towards transport
charges.
4. Being grieved by the award, the Corporation
preferred C.M.A. No. 2964 of 2003 and the claimant
preferred Cross Objection (MD) No. 45 of 2008 for
enhancement of the quantum. The High Court, while
computing the amount of compensation, did not grant any
amount for permanent disability but enhanced the future
income to Rs.1,15,000/- and added Rs.75,000/- for
replacement of artificial limb and for future medical
3
Page 4
expenses. It also granted Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities
and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. On certain
heads it also marginally enhanced the amount as a
consequence of which the amounts stood enhanced to
Rs.2,75,000/-. It is apt to mention here that the High
Court came to the conclusion that the claimant was
entitled for compensation for loss of earning capacity due
to disability and both were to be in compartment. It also
did not grant interest on the enhanced sum. In the
ultimate eventuate the High Court vide its judgment dated
14.7.2010 rejected the appeal filed by respondent No. 1
and allowed the cross-objection in part. Being dissatisfied,
the claimant has preferred the present appeal for
enhancement of the amount of compensation.
5. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts
as have been adumbrated are not in dispute. Therefore,
first we shall advert to the issue whether the High Court
was justified in awarding compensation on a singular head
relating to permanent disability and loss of future earning.
In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and
Another1, after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. 1 2012 (10) SCALE 516
4
Page 5
Randhir Singh2 and B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation Ltd.3, this Court
expressed the view that compensation can be granted
towards permanent disability as well as loss of future
earnings, for one head relates to the impairment of
person’s capacity and the other relates to the sphere of
pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the
person himself. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v.
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and
another4, wherein it has been laid down thus: -
“The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim’s inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.”
Thus, the view expressed by the High Court on this score
is not sustainable. 2 (1990) 3 SCC 723 3 (2011) 6 SCC 420 4 2012 ACJ 191
5
Page 6
6. Be it noted, the High Court has granted Rs.20,000/-
for pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- for loss of
amenities. In this context, we may profitably refer to
Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company
Limited5, wherein this Court after referring to the
pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control
(India) (P) Ltd.6, Nizam’s Institute of Medical
Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka7, Reshma Kumari
v. Madan Mohan8, Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd.9 and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar10
has laid down as under: -
“In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then 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 his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities,
5 (2011) 10 SCC 683 6 (1951) 1 SCC 551 7 (2009) 6 SCC 1 8 (2009) 13 SCC 422 9 (2010) 10 SCC 254 10 (2011) 1 SCC 343
6
Page 7
which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.”
Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state whether in the
said case, the compensation awarded to the claimant-
victim was just and reasonable or he was entitled to
enhanced compensation under certain heads, namely, (i)
Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of
leg; (ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability; (iii) Future medical expenses; (iv) Compensation
for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the
amputation of leg; (v) Loss of amenities including loss of
the prospects of marriage; and (vi) Loss of expectation of
life.
7. It is seemly to state that in the said case, the
tribunal had awarded Rs.2,56,800/- and the High Court
had enhanced the same to Rs.3,06,000/-. This Court
considering various aspects granted Rs.4,53,600/- in lieu
of loss of earning, Rs.2,00,000/- towards future treatment,
Rs.1,50,000/- for pain, suffering and trauma and
Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenity and enjoyment of
life and thereby determined the total amount to
7
Page 8
Rs.9,53,600/-. While determining the said sum, the Bench
observed as follows: -
“25. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was meager. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the tribunals and the courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation.
26. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs1,50,000 in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg.
27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also meager. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of his life with one artificial leg. The appellant can be expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like a normal human being and will not be able to enjoy life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it
8
Page 9
would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs1,50,000 for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.”
8. We have reproduced from the said decision in
extenso, as the Court has dwelled upon the fundamental
concept of just compensation regard being had to the
value of life and limb in our country. Needless to say, the
approach in such matters has to be liberal as well as a
balanced one.
9. In the case at hand, the tribunal had awarded a sum
of Rs.86,000/- towards the permanent disability. The High
Court has deleted it. The said deletion as per our above
discussion is impermissible. In our considered opinion
regard being had to the nature of injury suffered and
further taking note of the date of accident, a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- on this head would be appropriate and,
accordingly, we so determine.
10. Presently, we shall proceed to compute the loss of
earning capacity. The claimant was earning Rs.1,500/- per
month and thereby Rs.18,000/- per annum. As she has
suffered 86% permanent disability, the future earning may
9
Page 10
be computed at 14% less and accordingly it is estimated
that the multiplicand should be Rs.15,480/- per annum. At
the time of accident, she was 30 years of age, and hence,
the multiplier of 18 would be applicable, as has been held
in Sarla Verma v. D.T.C.11. Thus, the loss of future
earning by multiplying the multiplicand of Rs.15,480/- by
multiplier of 18, the amount would come to Rs.2,78,640/-.
11. As far as the pain and suffering and loss of amenities
are concerned, we think it is appropriate to grant a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-. In respect of other heads, namely, medical
expenses, extra nourishment, transport charges and loss
of earning during treatment, the amount awarded by the
High Court is allowed to remain as such. Thus, the
amount on the aforesaid scores would come to
Rs.45,000/-. As far as the future replacement of artificial
limbs and other medical expenses are concerned, keeping
in view the escalation of price, we think it seemly to
enhance it Rs.1,25,000/-.
12. Presently to the grant of interest. The High Court has
declined to award interest on the enhanced sum. No
11 (2009) 6 SCC 121
1
Page 11
reason has been ascribed therefor. Section 171 of the Act
deals with award of interest. It reads as follows: -
“171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed. – Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.”
13. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General,
Geological Survey of India and Another12, S.B. Sinha,
J. in his opinion after referring to the earlier decisions
opined that the question as to what should be the rate of
interest would depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case and award of interest would normally depend
on the bank rate prevailing at that time. A.R. Laxmanan,
J. in his concurring opinion stated as follows: -
“The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by
12 (2003) 3 SCC 148
1
Page 12
the victim, enormity of suffering loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration.”
14. In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Tanjore, represented by its MD v. Natarajan and
others13, this Court awarded interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition on the
amount of compensation.
15. Thus analysed, we are disposed to think that the
High Court has erred in not granting interest on the
enhanced sum. As is evincible, the tribunal had granted
payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we
find that the interest awarded by the tribunal is just and
proper and accordingly we direct that the interest on the
differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate
9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the date of deposit of the same before the tribunal.
The respondent corporation is directed to deposit the
differential amount before the tribunal within a period of
eight weeks from today.
13 (2003) 6 SCC 137
1
Page 13
16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent
indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
……………………………….J. [K. S. Radhakrishnan]
……………………………….J. [Dipak Misra]
New Delhi; November 01, 2012.
1