Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2008-09/2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 35565-35566/2011]

G. DHANASEKAR … APPELLANT (S)   

VERSUS

M.D., METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED … RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.    

2. Whether  an  accident  victim  is  entitled  to  get  

compensation for functional disability? If so, what is  

the method for computation of compensation? These  

are the two issues arising for considerations in this  

case.

3. Computation of just and reasonable compensation is  

the  bounden  duty  of  the  Motor  Accident  Claims  

Tribunal.  In  view  of  the  plethora  of  judgments  

rendered by this Court regarding the approach to be  

made in the award of compensation, we do not find it  1

Page 2

necessary to start with the first principles. In Rajesh  

and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others1, Master  

Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National  

Insurance Company Limited2 and in  Rekha Jain  

v.  National  Insurance  Company  Limited  and  

Others3,  this  Court  recently  has  extensively  dealt  

with  the  principles  governing  the  fixation  of  

compensation and the approach to be made by the  

courts in that regard.

4. In Rekha Jain’s case (supra), this Court following the  

case of  National Insurance Company Limited v.  

Mubasir Ahmed and Another4,  developed a very  

important  principle  on  functional  disability  while  

fixing  the  compensation.  Rekha  Jain,  a  cine  artist  

suffered an injury in a motor accident at the age of  

24  years  on  account  of  which  she  suffered  30%  

permanent  partial  disability  which  included  

disfigurement  of  her  face,  change  in  the  physical  

appearance, etc. It was found that on account of such  

development,  she  could  no  more  continue  her  

avocation as an actress and, hence, it was held that  

1 (2013) 9 SCC 54 2 2013 (10) SCALE 668 3 (2013) 8 SCC 389 4 (2007) 2 SCC 349

2

Page 3

she had suffered 100% functional disability. Hence,  

this  Court  awarded  compensation  following  the  

principles  laid  down  in  Sarla  Verma  (Smt.)  and  

Others v.  Delhi  Transport  Corporation  and  

Another5.  

5. As  far  as  compensation  for  functional  disability  is  

concerned,  it  has  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  

principle  cannot  be  uniformly  applied.  It  would  

depend on the impact caused by the injury on the  

victim’s profession/career. To what extent the career  

of the victim has been affected, thereby his regular  

income is  reduced or  dried  up  will  depend on  the  

facts and circumstances of each case. There may be  

even situations where the physical disability does not  

involve any functional disability at all.

6. Now,  we  shall  refer  to  the  factual  matrix.  The  

appellant,  driver  by  profession  and  operating  a  

tourist  taxi  himself,  met  with  a  motor  accident  on  

05.09.2008. While driving the Tata Sumo car, a bus  

operated by the respondent, came from the opposite  

direction and dashed against the car. The appellant  

suffered  fracture  on  right  leg  and  right  arm.  

5 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3

Page 4

According to the doctor,  on account of  the injuries  

suffered  by  the  appellant  and  the  operations  

undergone by him to fix a thick plate in the tibia bone  

with  five  screws,  the  appellant  will  not  be  in  a  

position to bend his right knee beyond 90 degrees.  

There is shortening of the leg by one centimeter on  

account of nerve injury.  He would be limping while  

walking. He cannot lift weight over 3 kilograms. His  

right hand movement is restricted to 25 degrees. He  

will  not  be able to  drive two wheelers  and he can  

drive  four  wheelers  with  difficulty.  To  quote  

PW1(appellant):

“After  the incident,  I  cannot  bend my right  knee beyond 90 deg. I cannot use my right  hand  for  lifting  any  weighty  objects.  The  movements in my right hand elbow and wrist  has  almost  been  restricted.  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  drive  the  vehicles  as  before.  I  cannot  use  Indian  toilet  or  squat  or  carry  weight.  I  am walking  with  limping.  Walking  and standing for some time is a painful one.  Because  of  the  dislocation  of  bone  in  the  lower jaw, I am not able to open my mouth  fully  and  speak  coherently.  I  find  it  very  difficult  to  eat  hard  objects.  I  am suffering  from intermittent head ache and giddiness. I  have completely lost my earning capacity. I  am having severe pain and suffering.”  

7. The  Tribunal  awarded  a  total  compensation  of  

Rs.4,50,000/-. The Tribunal found that the appellant  

4

Page 5

has  contributed  to  the  accident  and,  hence,  the  

liability of the respondent was fixed at 50%. In appeal  

before  the  High  Court,  it  was  held  that  the  

contributory negligence on the part of the appellant  

is only 30%. The compensation was also refixed to an  

amount  of  Rs.3,20,000/-.  Thus,  the  appellant  was  

held entitled to Rs.2,24,000/-  with interest @ 7.5%  

per annum.

8. Thus,  aggrieved,  the  claimant  has  filed  these  

appeals. There is no appeal by the respondent.  

9. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the  

appellant that the Tribunal and the High Court erred  

in  not  taking  into  consideration  the  factor  of  his  

functional disability. Since, it is in evidence that the  

appellant cannot continue his avocation of driver as  

earlier, he should be reasonably compensated in that  

regard, it is submitted. Yet another strong submission  

is  with  regard  to  the  finding  on  contributory  

negligence. It is contended that only the driver of the  

offending vehicle is negligent, he is wholly negligent  

5

Page 6

and that there is no negligence on the part of the  

appellant.

10. We shall  first  deal  with  the  aspect  of  contributory  

negligence.  There  is  no  dispute  that  the  vehicles  

were coming in opposite direction. It has also come in  

evidence  that  the  driver  of  the  bus  has  filed  a  

complaint  before  the  police  and  the  police  has  

registered  an  FIR.  Except  the  driver  of  both  the  

vehicles and the doctor  who treated the appellant,  

there is  no  other  oral  evidence.  The FIR,  disability  

certificate, medical bills, driving licence, RC book and  

permit  were  also  marked.  The  Tribunal,  having  

referred to the entire evidence, held as follows:

“On  perusal  of  Ex.R.1.  FIR  and  from  the  evidence of the Petitioner and RW.1. driver of the  bus, it  is clear that both the vehicles came in a  rash and negligent manner and with high speed  and  dashed  against  each  other.  In  the  above  accident, the driver of the Tata Sumo was injured.  Taking advantage of the situation, the driver of the  bus gave complaint to Police. Hence the driver of  the bus gave complaint accusing the driver of the  Tata  Sumo car.  No other  independent  witnesses  were examined.

Hence  this  Court  comes  to  the  conclusion  that the bus came in a rash and negligent manner  and dashed against the deceased (  sic  : car). Hence    it is concluded that negligence on the part of the  

6

Page 7

driver of the bus is the root cause of the accident.  The evidence of RW.1 driver shows that he simply  throws the blame on the injured.”  

(Emphasis supplied)

11. It  is  strange  that  having  arrived  at  such  finding  

regarding negligence on the part of the driver of the  

bus, the Tribunal proceeded further in holding that:

“The manner  of  the accident shows that  both  the  vehicles  came  in  an  uncontrollable  speed  and  dashed against each other. Hence the impact of the  accident  was  very  heavy  and  both  the  vehicles  damaged  heavily.  Hence  this  court  comes  to  the  conclusion that both the vehicles came in a rash and  negligent  manner  with  high  speed  and  dashed  against  each  other.  Hence  it  is  concluded  that  contributory negligence is fixed on the driver of both  vehicles and negligence on the part of the drivers of  both vehicles is the root cause of the accident and  they are equally responsible for the accident.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12.  It  needs  no  elaborate  discussion  to  hold  that  the  

findings  are  intra  contradictory.  Unfortunately,  

despite specific ground taken before the High Court,  

this  aspect  of  the  matter  was  not  considered  

properly. It was, however, held that:

“… Considering the fact that no other eye witness  has  been  examined  and  the  respective  drivers  alone have been examined, we have to consider  their  evidence  in  the  light  of  surrounding  circumstances. If so considered, then it cannot be  

7

Page 8

precisely  decided  that  one  of  them  was  solely  responsible  for  the  accident.  Considering  the  aforesaid facts, we fix 30% negligence on the part  of the claimant and 70% negligence on the part of  the driver of the bus. …”

13. PW1  has  stated  that  a  passenger  in  the  bus  was  

thrown out of the bus through the front windscreen  

and  that  the  car  took  a  u-turn  on  account  of  the  

impact  of  the  accident.  Apparently,  it  was  this  

evidence  which  lead  to  the  first  finding  by  the  

Tribunal that the negligence on the part of the driver  

of the bus was the root cause of the accident and it  

was the bus which dashed against the car.  Having  

entered  such  a  finding,  another  finding  on  

contributory  negligence  is  unsustainable.  

Unfortunately,  without  proper  appreciation  of  the  

evidence, the High Court has fixed 30% negligence  

on the part of the appellant, which we find it difficult  

to  sustain.  Therefore,  in  the  light  of  evidence  

available in this case, we restore the first finding of  

the Tribunal that the negligence on the part of the  

bus driver is the root cause of the accident.

8

Page 9

14. As  noted  above,  appellant  is  a  driver  operating  a  

tourist  taxi.  On  account  of  the  physical  disability  

referred to above, it needs no elaborate discussion to  

hold that he would not be in a position to continue his  

avocation at the same rate, or in the same manner  

as  before.  He  was  aged  46  years  at  the  time  of  

accident. Therefore, we are of the view that it is a  

case where the appellant should be given just and  

reasonable compensation for his functional disability  

as his income has been affected.  The court has to  

make a fair assessment on the impact of disability on  

the professional functions of the victim. In this case,  

the victim is not totally disabled to engage in driving.  

At the same time, it has to be seen that he cannot  

continue his career as earlier. In such circumstances,  

the  percentage of  physical  disability  can  be safely  

taken  as  the  extent  of  functional  disability.  In  the  

assessment  of  the  doctor,  it  is  35%.  Since  the  

appellant is compensated for functional disablement,  

he will not be entitled to any other compensation on  

account  of  physical  disability  or  loss  of  earning  

capacity,  etc.  However,  he  is  entitled  to  

reimbursement towards medical expenses, etc.  The  

9

Page 10

Tribunal has fixed income of Rs.10,000/-. There is no  

serious  dispute  on  this  aspect.  Therefore,  applying  

the principle laid down by this Court in Rajesh’s and  

Others case  (supra),  the  appellant  is  entitled  to  

compensation as computed below:   

Sl.  No.

HEADS CALCULATIO N

(i) Annual Income = Rs.10,000 x 12 = Rs.1,20,000/- (ii) After  deducting  1/3rd of  the  total  income  for  

personal  expenses,  the  balance  will  be  =  [Rs.1,20,000/- - Rs.40,000/-] =

Rs.80,000/-

(iii) Add 30% towards increase in future income, as  per  Sarla  Verma  and  Rajesh  and  Others  cases (supra) =

Rs.1,04,000/-

(iv) Compensation after multiplier of 13 is applied =  [Rs.1,04,000/- x 13] =  

Rs.13,52,000/ -

(v) Applying  the  35%  functional  disability,  the  appellant will be entitled to the compensation of  35% of Rs.13,52,000/- =

Rs.4,73,200/-

(vi) Reimbursement towards medical expenses = Rs.60,000/- (vii) Amount towards extra nourishment, etc.  

                                                                       Rs.10,000/-

(viii )

Damages to the vehicle (as awarded by the High  Court) =

Rs.10,000/-

(ix) Amount towards actual loss of earning during the  period  of  hospitalization  and  thereafter  during  the period of rest =

Rs.40,000/-

(x) Amount towards pain and sufferings = Rs.10,000/-

(xi) Amount towards expenses on attendant = Rs.10,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED   [(v)+(vi)+(vii)+(viii)+(ix)+(x)+(xi)] Rs.6,13,200/-

15. The  amount  of  total  compensation  awarded  shall  

carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing  

the  petition  before  the  Motor  Accident  Claims  

Tribunal till realization.

16. The appeals are allowed as above. There is no order  

as to costs.                                       1

Page 11

                                        ………..…………………….….. …………J.

 (SUDHANSU JYOTI  MUKHOPADHAYA)

                                       ………………….. …………………………J.

(KURIAN JOSEPH) New Delhi; February 12, 2014.  

1