D.SAMPATH Vs UNITED INDIA INS.CO.LTD..
Bench: G.S. SINGHVI,H.L. DATTU, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-007824-007824 / 2011
Diary number: 2593 / 2011
Advocates: Vs
SHAKIL AHMED SYED
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7824 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6618 of 2011)
D. Sampath .........….. Appellant
versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ..............Respondents
J U D G M E N T
H.L. DATTU, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2099 of 2002 dated 12.04.2010. By
the impugned judgment, the Court has modified the compensation
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (for
short, “the Tribunal”) in MCOP No.1971 of 1998 dated
12.02.2002.
3. The facts are not in dispute. Claimant was a pillion rider of
a motor cycle which was driven by one A. Sridhar. It met with an
accident due to oil spill on the road on 14.01.1998 at about 7.10
P.M. The claimant and the driver of the vehicle sustained injuries.
Both of them were treated in the hospital for the injuries sustained
by them. The vehicle was insured with United India Insurance
Company Ltd. – respondent No.1 by the owner of the vehicle –
respondent No.2. The claimant filed claim petition before the
Tribunal inter-alia requesting to award compensation at a sum of
`12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs only) under various heads.
Claimant had examined himself as PW-2 and other witnesses,
including Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan – PW-3, who had assessed the
disability sustained by the claimant at 75%. The Tribunal, after
considering the various factors, including the medical evidence,
had quantified the compensation payable by the Insurance
Company at a sum of `3,50,000/-. Being aggrieved by the
compensation so awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant had
preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2099 of 2002, before the
High Court of judicature at Madras. The Court, after re-
considering the claim of the claimant and re-appreciating the
evidence on record, has enhanced the compensation to `4,90,000/-
from `3,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is this judgment and
order which is called in question in this appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis and
perused the records.
5. We do not intend to disturb the judgment and order passed
by the High Court except to a limited extent. The High Court,
while assessing the compensation payable to the claimant, has
arrived at the loss of earning capacity in a sum of ` 8,16,000/- and,
thereafter, though the Doctor has assessed 75% disability, has
taken into account 50% disability while calculating the loss of
income without any rhyme or reason. In our view, this is a mistake
committed by the High Court. It is no doubt true that, while
making assessment, there is an element of guess work, but that
guess work again must have reasonable nexus to the available
material/evidence and the quantification made. In the instant case,
the claimant had not only examined himself to sustain the claim
made in the petition but also Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan, PW-3, who
has stated that the claimant has suffered 75% disability, by
referring to the Disability Certificate issued by a competent Doctor
who had treated the claimant. Though the Doctor is cross-
examined at length by learned Advocate for the Insurance
Company, nothing adverse to the interest of the claimant is
elicited. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly accepted the evidence
of the Doctor-PW-3. However, the High Court has taken 50%
disability into account while calculating the loss of income. This,
in our view, is the mistake committed by the High Court. We
hastened to add that we are not saying that under all circumstances,
the Court has to blindly accept the Disability Certificate produced
by the claimant. The Court has the discretion to accept either
totally or partially or reject the Certificate so produced and marked
in the trial but, that, can be done only by assigning cogent and
acceptable reasons. In this view of the matter, we take the
disability suffered by the claimant at 75% and calculate the loss of
income of the claimant keeping in view the loss of earning
capacity of the claimant assessed by the High Court. Accordingly,
we arrive at the loss of earning capacity of the claimant at
`6,12,000/-.
6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. We direct the
Insurance Company to deposit a sum of `6,12,000/- after deducting
the amount already paid or deposited with accrued interest of 6%
from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment before
the Tribunal within two months from today. On such deposit, the
Tribunal is directed to release the amount to the claimant. No
order as to costs.
..………………………J. [G.S. SINGHVI]
..………………………J. [H.L. DATTU]
New Delhi, September 13, 2011.