REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.4398 OF 2016

Anil Kumar         ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Branch Manager, National  Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.      …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the

final judgment and order dated 19.03.2015 passed by

the  High  Court of  Karnataka  Bench  at  Dharwad in

Misc. First Appeal No. 24385 of 2011(MV) whereby the

High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the claimant

(appellant herein) and affirmed the judgment and

award dated 12.04.2011 passed by the Member,

MACT­II, Bellary in M.V.C. No.711 of 2010.

1

2. Few relevant facts need to be mentioned

hereinbelow to appreciate the question involved in the

appeal.

3. The appellant was working as a cleaner in a lorry

bearing Regn. No.AP­21/V­4682 belonging to

respondent No.2 herein.   At the relevant time, it was

insured  with respondent  No.1.   On 05.12.2004, at

about 1.00 p.m. near VGM Factory, Belgal Road,

Bellary, when the appellant was standing in front of

the  abovementioned  lorry for the purpose of loading

iron ore, the driver of the lorry  moved the vehicle

without giving any signal or horn and dashed it

against him.   As a result of which, the appellant

sustained facture of both pelvic bones with rapture of

urethra and abdomen injuries and other grievous

injuries  all over  his  body.  The  appellant  was then

taken to VIMS Hospital, Bellary for the medical

treatment. The appellant claimed to have spent a

substantial sum towards his medical treatment.   Due

2

to the aforementioned injuries sustained by the

appellant, he has become permanently disabled to do

the work which he was doing before the accident. At

the time of accident, the appellant was 25 years of age

and earning Rs.4000/­ per month.    

4. The appellant filed a claim petition bearing

M.V.C. No.711 of 2010 before the MACT­II at Bellary

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

claimed compensation from the respondents.   It was

contested by the respondents.   By award dated

12.04.2011, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant’s

claim petition.  It was held that the monthly income of

the appellant­claimant was Rs.4000/­, that the

accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver

of offending vehicle, that the appellant sustained

partial but permanent disability in the whole body to

the extent of  25% and that the age of  the appellant

was 25 years on the date of accident.   The Tribunal

then applied the multiplier of 18 and accordingly

3

awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/­ towards loss of future

income, Rs.75,000/­ towards pain and sufferings,

Rs.25,000/­ towards  medical expenses, Rs.15,000/­

towards future medical expenses and Rs.12,000/­

towards loss of income during laid up period.   So far

as the liability was concerned, the Tribunal held that

the policy was a package policy equivalent to

comprehensive policy, which covers the risk of cleaner

also.  

5. The Tribunal accordingly awarded a total

compensation of  Rs.3,43,000/­ with  interest  payable

at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till

payment against the respondents jointly and severally.

6.   Being aggrieved by the award passed by the

Tribunal, the appellant­Claimant filed M.F.A.

No.24385 of 2011(MV) for enhancement of the

compensation  before the  High Court.  The  Insurance

Company (respondent No.1 herein) also felt aggrieved

and filed  M.F.A.  No.23729 of 2011 (MV) before the

4

High Court for setting aside the award passed by the

Tribunal.

7.   The High Court, by order dated 19.03.2015,

dismissed both the appeals.

8.  Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant­

claimant has filed this appeal by way of special leave

in this Court.   So far as the Insurance  Company­

respondent  No.1  herein is  concerned, they  have  not

filed any appeal against the impugned order.

9. The short question, which arises for

consideration  in  this  appeal, is  whether  any case  is

made out on facts/evidence for further enhancement

of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the

appellant (claimant).  

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we are

inclined to allow the appeal in part  and accordingly

enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to

the extent indicated infra.

5

11. In our considered opinion, the High Court erred

in dismissing the claimant’s appeal and thus

committed an error in not further enhancing the

compensation. In other words, the appellant was able

to  make out  a  case for further  enhancement in the

quantum  of compensation awarded  by the Tribunal

and, therefore, he is entitled for enhancement in the

award of compensation on the grounds  mentioned

below.

12. First, the appellant (claimant) was a young

unmarried boy of 25 years at the time of accident and

did not suffer with any kind of ailment; Second, the

appellant had sustained fracture of both pelvic bones

with rapture of urethra and abdomen injuries for

which he underwent four operations and suffered

partial but permanent disability in his body  which

reduced his  movement capacity to a larger extent;

Third, the appellant due to partial but permanent

disability also lost his job;   Fourth, he spent a

6

substantial sum for his medical treatment; and lastly,

since the appellant is not still able to move freely due

to disabilities suffered  by  him,  he is entitled to be

suitably compensated by awarding him monetary

compensation.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent (Insurance

Company) urged that no case for any further

enhancement in the  compensation is  made  out  and

that the High Court was, therefore, justified in

upholding the award of the Tribunal.  

14. We do not  agree with the submission urged by

the learned counsel for respondent No.1­Insurance

Company for the abovementioned reasons given by us.

15. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the

grounds mentioned above, which found acceptance to

the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the

appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/­

in lump sum in addition to what has been awarded by

the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.3,43,000/­.

7

16. In other  words, the appellant (claimant) is  now

entitled to claim a total sum of Rs.8,43,000/­ from the

respondents jointly and severally by way of

compensation  for the injuries  sustained,  partial  and

permanent disability occurred, medical expenses

incurred and loss occasioned due to injuries sustained

by him in the accident.

17. We, however, do not award interest on the

enhanced sum of Rs.5,00,000/­, which we have

awarded to the appellant. In this view of the matter,

the appellant is entitled to claim interest only on the

sum of Rs.3,43,000/­ at the rate of 8 % awarded by

the Tribunal.

18. The appeal thus succeeds and is accordingly

allowed. Impugned order  is set aside and the award

passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent

indicated above.

19. Respondent No.1 (Insurance Company) is

directed to deposit the awarded amount, as mentioned

8

above, within three months in the Tribunal to enable

the claimant (appellant) to withdraw the awarded sum

after making proper verification by the Tribunal.   

                       ………...................................J.        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

  …...……..................................J.               [UDAY UMESH LALIT]

New Delhi; August 31, 2018  

9