DINESH SINGH Vs BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENL.INSURANCE CO.LTD &ORS
Bench: P SATHASIVAM,RANJAN GOGOI,N.V. RAMANA
Case number: C.A. No.-008215-008216 / 2009
Diary number: 7118 / 2009
Advocates: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL Vs
PRAGATI NEEKHRA
Page 1
NON - REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8215 – 8216 OF 2009
DINESH SINGH … APPELLANT
VERSUS
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL … RESPONDENTS INSURANCE CO LTD.
JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J.
These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgment
passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in
M.F.A. No. 4502 of 2007 C/W. M.F.A. No. 3293 of 2007.
2. The appellant is the claimant. He filed claim petition being M.V.C.
No. 515 of 2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hubli,
stating that he is B.E. Degree holder in Metallurgy. He is aged 24 years
and was working as Quality Engineer in Hospet Steels Ltd. On
13.04.2004 while he was returning to his home from the company he
met with an accident. In the accident, he sustained grievous and
fracture injuries to the knee and also left hand. He was taken to a
1
Page 2
hospital in Hubli for treatment, where his left leg was amputated. He
was in the said hospital as an inpatient till June, 2004. Thereafter, he
took treatment at Tulasidas Gopalji Charitable and Dhakleswar Temple
Trust and All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
Bombay and he is still under treatment and presently walking with the
assistance of an artificial limb.
3. According to him, due to amputation of his left leg, he suffered
100% permanent disability. At the time of accident, he was getting
monthly salary of Rs.17,200/-.as an Engineer. Because of the disability,
he had to resign his job as an Engineer and take up a desk job in
Industrial Development Bank of India. Being a bachelor, he has lost
prospects of getting married. He thus laid the claim for a total
compensation of Rs.40,75,000/- under different heads for the injuries
sustained by him.
4. The respondent resisted the claim of the appellant. The Tribunal
considering the evidence placed by the appellant, both oral and
documentary, awarded in all Rs.30,60,160/- as compensation to the
appellant under different heads. Against the said award, both the
appellant as well as the respondent filed appeals before the High Court
of Karnataka, the appellant seeking enhancement, while the respondent
for reduction. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
2
Page 3
appellant and partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and
reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.30,60,160/-
to Rs. 6,32,000/-.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
at the time of accident, was a young boy of 24 years age and was
unmarried. He completed his Engineering in Metallurgy and was
working in a private company as Quality Engineer and was getting
Rs.17,200/- p.m. The appellant is very intelligent, and because of
amputation of his left leg above the knee, he suffered more than 80%
permanent disability, and his future became very bleak. The appellant
had to resign his job as an Engineer and take up a desk job in a private
Bank, which he may lose due to recession in the economy. However,
the High Court has without any valid and proper reason, without
considering the above facts and without appreciating the evidence
properly, has drastically reduced the just and reasonable compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. He thus prayed that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, just and reasonable compensation be
granted to the appellant.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
supported the judgment of the High Court insofar as it reduced the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and further contended that the
3
Page 4
reduced compensation awarded by the High Court being just and
reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, needs no further
enhancement.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the respondent.
8. The fact that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident is not in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is B.E. Degree holder
in Metallurgy and was working as Quality Engineer in Hospet Steels Ltd.
Though the appellant contended that at the time of accident he was
earning Rs.17,200/- per month, but in the absence of any document
produced by the appellant to prove the same, the Tribunal as well as the
High Court, took the monthly salary of the appellant at Rs.12,840/- as
evidenced by Ex.P35, and we do not find any error with the said income
taken by the Tribunal and the High Court. The appellant due to the
injuries sustained by him, undisputedly, was out of employment for a
period of two years. However, the High Court committed an error in
holding that the appellant was out of employment for only six months.
As the appellant was out of employment for a period of two years (24
months), his loss of earnings for the said period would be Rs.12,840/- x
24 = Rs.3,08160/-, which the Tribunal has rightly awarded.
4
Page 5
9. The Tribunal taking into consideration the monthly salary of the
appellant at Rs.12,840/- and considering his young age at 24, applied
the multiplier 17 and having regard to the 60% permanent disability
suffered by him, arrived the compensation towards future loss of
earnings at Rs.15,72,000/-. However, while agreeing that the appellant
that as per Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he suffered
80% permanent disability, taking into consideration the subsequent
employment of the appellant in Industrial Development Bank of India as
a Grade-B Officer, held that the appellant did not suffer any loss of future
earnings on account of his permanent disability, and accordingly,
disallowed the claim of the appellant under the head ‘loss of earnings’.
10. We have considered the material placed before us, particularly the
evidence of the Doctor, who stated that the appellant suffered 60%
disability of the total body, and in his cross-examination denied the
suggestion that the appellant does not require any further treatment.
The fact that the appellant has resigned as Quality Engineer from
Hospet Steels Ltd and took up desk job in Industrial Development Bank
of India because of his permanent disability, suffered by him in the
accident is not in dispute. Obviously, because of the permanent
disability suffered by the appellant, who is an Engineer by profession,
cannot take up such profession, which requires moving from one place
5
Page 6
to other place. Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court that the
appellant has not suffered any financial loss because of permanent
disability having regard to the fact that subsequently he took up
employment in Industrial Development Bank of India as Grade-B Officer,
cannot be sustained. Once the permanent disability is fixed, taking into
consideration, its impact on the employment/profession of the claimant,
the compensation has to be awarded. Since the disability suffered by
the appellant, which is fixed at 60% and which is permanent in nature,
impacted his employment and future prospects, we are of the considered
opinion that the Tribunal has rightly determined the compensation
Rs.12,840/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.26,19,360/- towards loss of future earnings,
and taking into consideration the 60% permanent disability suffered by
the appellant, awarded him the actual compensation under the head
‘loss of future earnings’ at Rs.15,71,616/- by rounding off the same to
Rs.15,72,000/-.
11. The appellant, admittedly, was in hospital as an inpatient for a long
time. He was operated upon for two times, and presently he is able to
move with the assistance of an artificial limb, and he still has to take
treatment, as is evident from the evidence of the Doctor, and considering
the fact that loss of limb causes lot of pain to any living being, we are of
the considered opinion that compensation payable to the appellant
6
Page 7
under the head ‘pain and agony’, should be reasonable. The Tribunal
has awarded Rs. 70,000/-, and we feel it appropriate to enhance by
another Rs.50,000/-, and upon such enhancement, the appellant would
be entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- under the head ‘pain and agony’. Therefore,
we hold that the High Court erred in reducing the compensation payable
to the appellant under the head “pain and agony’.
12. The compensation payable to the appellant under the heads ‘loss
of amenities’ and ‘loss of marriage prospects’, also requires
enhancement. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,50,000/- under the head
‘loss of amenities’. We feel it appropriate to enhance the same by
another Rs.1,00,000/-. Upon such enhancement, the appellant would be
entitled to Rs.3,50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life.
13. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of marriage
prospects’ . We feel it appropriate to enhance the same by another
Rs.50,000/-, and on such enhancement, the appellant would be entitled
to Rs.1,00,000/- under the head ‘ loss of marriage prospects.
14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical
expenses. Considering the fact that the appellant still requires treatment
and has to change his artificial limb as and when required, we are of the
considered opinion that the compensation under the said head needs
7
Page 8
enhancement, and accordingly, we enhance the same by another
Rs.50,000/-. The appellant therefore, would be entitled to Rs.5,50,000/-.
15. In view of the evidence produced by the appellant that he has
spent about Rs.3,10,000/- towards medical expenditure, including
conveyance and attendance fee, for the period he was under treatment,
we are of the opinion that the same needs to be granted, and
accordingly, we grant the same as awarded by the Tribunal, and find
fault with the High Court in reducing the same.
16. Thus, in all, we hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation
of Rs. 33,10,160/- as under:
1. Pain and Agony Rs.1,20,000/-
2. Medical expenditure, including conveyance, attendant fee etc (During the period of treatment
Rs.3,10,000/-
3. Loss of income during hospitalization/treatment
Rs.3,08,160/-
4. Loss of future income Rs.15,72,000/-
5. Loss of happiness and loss of amenities Rs.3,50,000/-
6. Loss of marriage prospects Rs.1,00,000/- 7. Future medical expenses Rs.5,50,000/-
IN TOTAL Rs. 33,10,160/-
8
Page 9
17. The above compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal till the date of
payment,
18. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and
allow the appeals in the above terms with no order as to costs.
…………………………………………CJI. (P. SATHASIVAM)
……………………………………………J. (RANJAN GOGOI)
……………………………………………J. (N.V. RAMANA)
NEW DELHI, APRIL 23 , 2014
9