NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1441 OF 2011    (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No.5148/2010)

Syed Mehaboob             ...Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.             ...Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  appellant-claimant  was  a  driver-cum-cleaner  of  lorry  

bearing No. HR 38 F 8781 and the same was stopped in front of  

WIPRO company at Ring Road on 31.12.2001, when at about 9  

a.m., driver of the lorry bearing No. TN 34 A 2994 dashed  

against  the  appellant.  The  appellant  sustained  multiple  

injuries and was rushed to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and then to  

Victoria Hospital.

3. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the  

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs.4 lacs as compensation.  

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) concluded that the

accident occurred due to actionable negligence of the lorry  

driver bearing No. TN 34 A 2994 as a result of which the  

appellant sustained injuries.

5. Before the MACT, it was found that the appellant sustained  

compound  type  3-A  fracture  of  left  femur,  compound  type-2  

supracondylar  fracture  of  left  femur  and  fractured  right  

pubic  bone  for  which  he  had  to  undergo  operation  and  

treatment  in  the  hospital.  The  doctor  assessed  permanent  

disability of 86% to the left lower limb and 43% to the whole  

body. As a result of the injuries, the appellant was unable  

to walk, sit or stand without support and his left lower limb  

was shortened by 2.5 inches and, therefore, was incapable of  

driving any type of vehicle. Since the appellant was unable  

to  use  both  his  legs  for  driving,  it  would  affect  his  

occupation  as  a  driver  to  a  great  extent.  The  MACT,  in  

calculating compensation, considered the principle that while  

assessing the economic and functional disability what is to  

be looked into is the occupation of the appellant and the  

extent  to  which  the  physical  disability  sustained  by  the  

appellant would affect his earning capacity. Accordingly, on  

taking into consideration the nature of disabilities suffered  

with  reference  to  the  avocation  of  the  appellant,  it  

estimated the functional loss of future earning capacity of  

the appellant at 100%.

6. The appellant had claimed that he was earning Rs.5000-6000/-

p.m.  However,  the  same  was  unsubstantiated  by  material  

evidence. Hence, the Tribunal estimated the daily earnings of  

the appellant at Rs.80/- and monthly earnings at Rs.2400/-.  

At the time of the accident, the appellant was 28 years old.  

Thus, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16. Accordingly,  

loss of future earnings of the appellant was calculated at  

Rs.2400  X  12  X  16  =  Rs.4,60,800/-.  Tribunal  awarded  

compensation as follows:

Loss of future earnings - Rs.4,60,800/-

Injury, pain and suffering - Rs.40,000/-

Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life - Rs.30,000/-

Medical expenses - Rs.25,000/-

Loss of earning during treatment - Rs.12,000/-

(for 5 months)

Conveyance and nourishment - Rs.10,000/-

TOTAL - Rs.5,77,800/-

7. The  Tribunal  held  that  the  owner  of  the  vehicle  and  the  

insurance company were jointly and severally liable to pay  

Rs.5,77,800/- as compensation to the appellant, along with  

interest @ 8% from the date of the petition till realization.  

8. Aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Tribunal, the  

insurance  company  appealed  to  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka

contending that the compensation so awarded was arbitrary and  

unreasonable.

9. The High Court assessed total bodily disability at 30% and  

assessed  his  income  at  Rs.3000/-  p.m.  and  held  that  the  

income proportionate to the disability was Rs.1000/- p.m. On  

re-appreciation of facts and evidence, the High Court held  

that the appellant was entitled to a reduced compensation as  

follows:

Pain and agony - Rs.50,000/-

Loss of amenities and future discomfort - Rs.30,000/-

Loss of income during laid up period - Rs.18,000/-

Loss of income on account of disability - Rs.1,92,000/-

(Rs.1000 X 12 X 16)

Medical and incidental expenses - Rs.30,000/-

TOTAL - Rs.3,20,000/-

10. The High Court, in passing its award, has virtually given no  

reasons for reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal  

to the appellant.  

11. We are of the opinion that the award of the Tribunal is well-

considered and well-reasoned and the compensation so computed  

by it is just and equitable. On the other hand, the High  

Court has reduced the compensation without any justification.

It is a well-settled principle of law that a court has duty  

to  give  reasons  as  its  judgment  affects  the  rights  and  

obligations of the litigating parties, who are entitled to  

know why the court came to its decision.

12. This duty to give reasons is even more necessary when the  

High Court disagrees with the judgment of a lower court and  

sets it aside.

13. The Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficent legislation  

intended to place the claimant in the same position that he  

was before the accident and to compensate him for his loss.  

Thus, it should be interpreted liberally so as to achieve the  

maximum benefit.

14. We  have  been  through  the  award  of  the  Tribunal  and  are  

satisfied that the award of compensation is not arbitrary,  

unreasonable  or  excessive.  It  is  passed  after  taking  into  

consideration  relevant  factors  and  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the case it is correct. The reduction in  

compensation by the High Court is in fact arbitrary and thus,  

we set aside the judgment of the High Court.  

15. Compensation shall be payable to the appellant as per the  

award of the Tribunal.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  

17. No order as to costs.

           .......................J.             (G.S. SINGHVI)

            ......................J. New Delhi                   (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) February 07, 2011