M.K. GOPINATHAN Vs J. KRISHNA .
Bench: P SATHASIVAM,RANJAN GOGOI,N.V. RAMANA
Case number: C.A. No.-000619-000619 / 2010
Diary number: 39131 / 2009
Advocates: K. V. MOHAN Vs
DEBASIS MISRA
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2010
M.K. GOPINATHAN … APPELLANT
VERSUS
J. KRISHNA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5 th March, 2009
passed by the High Court of Kerala in Motor Accident Claims Appeal
No. 1441 of 2004.
2. The case of the appellant is that he was employed in Malaysia
as a Tool & Die Engineer. He had come to his native town in Kerala to
attend his sister’s wedding. On 15.5.1996, when the appellant was
traveling in a jeep, a bus coming from the opposite direction rammed into
the jeep resulting in five deaths and the appellant suffered severe
injuries, namely a crush injury on his upper right arm which had to be -
1
Page 2
amputated. The appellant was treated as an in-patient in the hospital for
42 days and during which time four surgeries were conducted on him.
3. The appellant filed O.P. (MV) No. 304 of 1997 before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal claiming Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.14. The
Tribunal did not believe the version of the appellant that he had been
employed permanently as a Tool and Die Engineer in Malaysia and was
drawing Rs.50,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal noticed that the
appellant is permanently disabled to an extent of 70% due to the injuries
sustained by him in the accident. In the absence of any authentic,
reliable and acceptable proof produced by the appellant to show his
monthly income, the Tribunal considering the fact that the appellant is a
qualified Engineer, and having regard to the Schedule to the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, fixed his monthly income notionally at Rs.3,000/- and
considering his age at the time of accident, which is 34, applied the
multiplier 17. The Tribunal, passed award on 28.02.2004, awarding
compensation to the appellant to a tune of Rs.5,15,700/- in all, with
interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition and at 6% p.a.
from 31.12.2001.
4. The appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the
Tribunal, filed M.A.C.A. No. 1441 of 2004 before the High Court of -
2
Page 3
Kerala. The Division Bench of the High Court, reassessed the entire
case and opined that the Tribunal ought to have reasonably assessed
the monthly salary which the appellant was getting at the time of
accident. However, taking into consideration, the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court fixed the monthly income of
the appellant at Rs.5,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.3,000/- fixed by the
Tribunal, and enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,15,700/-, as
awarded by the Tribunal, to Rs. 8,43,500/-, which is inclusive of
Rs.4,200/- awarded towards extra nourishment. The High Court,
enhanced the interest payable on the compensation to the appellant
from 31.12.2001, from 6% p.a. to 7.5% p.a.
5. Being dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, the appellant
filed this appeal before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the
Tribunal and the High Court have erred in assessing the quantum of
compensation payable to the appellant. The compensation awarded is
not in consonance with the income and status of the appellant. On the
date of accident, the appellant was a Tool and Die Engineer on
permanent rolls of a company in Malaysia and was getting salary of
Rs.50,000/- p.m., apart from other benefits. Being a well qualified and
permanently employed person, the appellant apart from maintaining -
3
Page 4
himself in Malaysia, was supporting his family at Kerala by sending
substantial amount to them. He submitted that the High Court also failed
to take into account the actual monthly income and status of the
appellant, and has grossly erred in meagrely enhancing the monthly
salary from Rs.3,000/- fixed by the Tribunal to Rs.5,000/- for the purpose
of computing the compensation. At the time of accident, the appellant
was only 34 years old and in view of the 70% permanent disability
suffered during to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he had
lost all the growth avenues. He, therefore, submitted that the appellant,
having regard to his qualification, profession and the salary drawn by
him, was entitled to be awarded more compensation.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents,
submitted that the grounds raised in this appeal claiming enhancement
of compensation are absolutely devoid of merit. The Division Bench of
the High Court has adequately enhanced the amount of compensation
by Rs. 3,27,800/-, which is just and reasonable. Hence, it is submitted
that the case of the appellant is without any substance and does not
require interference from this Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
-
4
Page 5
9. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the
compensation payable to the appellant has to be computed based on
the assertion made by him that at the time of accident, he was working
as Tool and Die Engineer in a company in Malaysia and drawing Rs.
50,000/- p.m.?
10. The appellant, before the Tribunal to prove his monthly income
as Rs.50,000/- and in support of his claim for compensation, except
examining himself as P.W.4, did not examine any person. According to
him, he was working as a Tool and Die Engineer in a company in
Malaysia and getting Rs.50,000/- as monthly salary. He did not even
produce any authentic certificate to prove his income and qualification.
He has produced only a xerox copy of a certificate issued by the Institute
of Engineers India showing that he has passed Sections A & B of the
Institution’s examination in Mechanical Engineering branch. Though the
appellant failed to prove his income with documentary evidence, the fact
that he was holding an engineering certificate and was working in
Malaysia is not in dispute. In the circumstances, taking into consideration
the undisputed fact of his qualification, and particularly his working in
overseas Company, we feel just and reasonable to consider his monthly
income as Rs. 8,000/-.
-
5
Page 6
11. Accordingly, taking the monthly salary of the appellant as
Rs.8,000/-, the compensation payable to him has to be computed. Apart
from that, we enhance the amounts payable to the appellant under
different other heads in the manner following:
1. Loss of earnings (Rs.8,000/- x 6) minus Rs.18,000/-
Rs. 30,000/- more
2. Loss of amenities (Rs.30,000/- minus Rs.10,000/-)
Rs. 20,000/- more
3. Compensation for reduction In earning capacity (Rs. 8,000/- x 12 x 17 x 70/100) Minus Rs. 4,28,400/- i.e. (Rs. 11,42,400 – Rs.4,28,400/-)
Rs. 7,14,000/- more
4. Extra nourishment Rs. 20,000/- 5. Bills for payment to doctors Rs. 6,000/-
Total Rs. 7,90,000/- more
12. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the
appeal to the extent indicated above with interest @ 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of deposit. There shall be no order as to
costs.
…………………………………………CJI. (P. SATHASIVAM)
……………………………………………J. (RANJAN GOGOI)
……………………………………………J. (N.V. RAMANA)
NEW DELHI, APRIL 17, 2014
6