MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN Vs GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.
Bench: J. CHELAMESWAR,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Case number: C.A. No.-007201-007202 / 2015
Diary number: 31544 / 2013
Advocates: NIKHIL GOEL Vs
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7201-7202 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos. 36512-36513/2013)
Mithusinh Pannasinh Chauhan …….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. ……Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the
common final judgment and order dated 14.03.2012
passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
1
Page 2
in First Appeal No. 1536 of 2001 and First Appeal
No. 1819 of 2001 which arise out of the award dated
30.05.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (MACT), Panchmhals at Godhra in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 1071 of 1987.
3. By impugned judgment, the High Court partly
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent–
Corporation and reduced the compensation
awarded to the appellant–claimant herein by the
MACT and in consequence directed him to refund
the excess awarded amount with interest at the rate
of 12% p.a. to the respondent-Corporation and in
consequence dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant herein for seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the MACT.
4. In order to appreciate the issue involved in
these appeals, few relevant facts need mention infra,
2
Page 3
5. On 13.09.1987, when the appellant–claimant
was going on his bicycle from Godhra to Popatpura,
at that time, respondent No.2, who was driving S.T.
Bus No. GRU-8749 belonging to Gujarat State Road
Transport Corporation (in short “Corporation”) came
from Lunawada side and hit the appellant as a
result of which he fell down and sustained serious
injuries. The appellant was taken to the hospital at
Godhra but later on transferred to Baroda Hospital
and from there to Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad for
further treatment. He sustained a serious head
injury as a result of which he lost his memory.
Now, he is neither able to speak and nor able to
move properly. He underwent medical treatment in
hospital for a long time. At the time of accident, he
was aged about 35 years and was working as a
Constable in SRP. His earning was Rs.1400/- p.m.
Due to the accident and resultant injuries
3
Page 4
sustained, the appellant unfortunately lost his job
also.
6. The appellant then filed a claim petition being
Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1071 of 1987
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Panchmahals at Godhra under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short, “the Act) for
award of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs. 4
lakhs under various heads. By award dated
30.05.2000, the MACT partly allowed the
appellant’s claim petition and held that accident in
question was caused due to negligence of
respondent No.1 therein (respondent No.2 herein)
that the appellant had suffered 50% disability in his
body due to injuries sustained and accordingly
awarded to him a total sum of Rs.2,19,000/- as
compensation which included expenses in receiving
treatment and compensation for injuries sustained.
4
Page 5
7. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by
the MACT, the appellant filed an appeal being F.A.
No. 1819 of 2001 for enhancement of claim awarded
by the MACT whereas the Corporation-respondent
No.1 herein filed F.A. No. 1536 of 2001 against that
part of the award which allowed the claim petition
in part and awarded Rs.2,19,000/- contending that
it was on the higher side and hence be reduced.
8. By the common impugned judgment, the High
Court partly allowed the appeal filed by respondent-
Corporation and held that the claimant is entitled to
Rs.1,15,200/- towards future loss of income instead
of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the MACT and directed
the claimant to refund the excess amount of
Rs.64,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to
the respondent–Corporation. As a consequence, the
appeal filed by the appellant herein for
enhancement for compensation, was dismissed.
5
Page 6
9. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the High
Court, the appellant-claimant has filed these
appeals by way of special leave.
10. Heard Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior
counsel for respondent-1(Corporation).
11. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant
while assailing the legality and correctness of the
impugned order contended that the High Court
erred in allowing the appeal filed by the
respondent-Corporation thereby erred in reducing
the compensation awarded to the appellant by the
MACT and further erred in dismissing the
appellant’s appeal. It was his submission that
having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained
by the appellant in the accident and the percentage
of permanent disabilities caused to the appellant
due to the injuries on his body such as loss of
6
Page 7
speech and memory, his inability to move freely and
lastly loss of permanent job of Constable on account
of these disabilities, the MACT should have awarded
Rs.4,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant in his
claim petition rather than awarding Rs.2,19,000/-
including expenses incurred on treatment. Learned
counsel contended that since the MACT failed to
award Rs.4,00,000/-, the High Court should have
corrected the said error by enhancing the
compensation amount to Rs.4,00,000/- by allowing
the appellant's appeal and in consequence
dismissing the respondent's appeal.
12. Learned counsel pointed out that the appellant
had proved the nature of injuries so also the
resultant disabilities caused to him due to
sustaining of such injuries by examining Dr. Usha
Goswami and also from his own evidence which
remained rebutted for want of any evidence adduced
7
Page 8
by the respondents and hence taking into account
the appellant’s monthly salary, age 35 years,
percentage of permanent disability duly proved
(50% assessed by the MACT and 30% assessed by
the High Court), expenses incurred in receiving long
medical treatment in several hospitals proved by
documents (Ex-P-1 to Ex-P-58), future loss of
income and lastly compensation payable under the
head of pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
claimed by the appellant was just and reasonable
compensation and hence it should have been
awarded by the MACT or in any event by the High
Court by modifying the award of the MACT in
appellant's favour.
13. In contra, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent No.1 while
supporting the impugned judgment contended that
it does not call for any interference. His submission
8
Page 9
was that having regard to the nature of injuries
sustained by the appellant and the resultant
permanent disability caused to the appellant and
the loss caused, what was awarded by the MACT
was on the higher side and, therefore, it was rightly
reduced by the High Court by allowing the
respondent's appeal.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find force in the submissions of the appellant.
15. We have examined the evidence adduced by
the parties with a view to see the nature of injuries
and the resultant disability caused to the appellant
due to such injuries.
16. This issue was dealt with by the High Court in
Para 6 and we find no good ground to differ with
this finding of the High Court, which is otherwise
not under challenge. It reads as under :
9
Page 10
“As far as disability is concerned, Dr. Usha Goswami who has examined the claimant was Professor in Psychology Department and she is a head of the Psychology Department in the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. She categorically stated that due to injury, the claimant has lost his service and he is not able to speak properly and he had lost his memory and he is unable to move properly outside. However, the disability certificate was not produced by the claimant before the Tribunal. Therefore, in absence of disability certificate, 50% disability was assessed by the Tribunal which is on higher side. It should be 30% as the claimant is not able to speak and lost his memory…..”
17. Having rendered the aforementioned finding in
appellant’s favour, the High Court, in our opinion,
should not have reduced the compensation awarded
by the MACT but it should have enhanced the
compensation by allowing the appellant’s appeal.
18. In our considered opinion, in a case where the
appellant has proved that he has lost his speaking
power as also lost his memory retention power due
to causing of head injury and further he is not able
to move freely at the age of 35 years and lastly due
10
Page 11
to these injuries, he has also lost his job, we fail to
appreciate as to how and on what reasons the
MACT and the High Court could come to a
conclusion that a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-
claimed by the appellant was on a higher side and
thus reduced it to Rs.1,54,200/-. Indeed we found
no reason.
19. In our considered opinion, keeping in view of
the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant,
resultant permanent disabilities caused to him to
the extent of 50% or 30% due to such injuries which
are held proved by the appellant coupled with the
amount spent by him in receiving medical treatment
also duly held proved (Ex-P-1 to Ex-P-58) by him,
loosing the permanent job due to injuries sustained
by him, future loss of income caused as a result of
the injuries and lastly the continuous mental pain
and agony suffered by him, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
11
Page 12
claimed by the appellant by way of compensation is
just and reasonable.
20. In a case of this nature, in our opinion, the
injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant herein
are more painful because he has to live his
remaining life with such disabilities, which he did
not have before accident. This undoubtedly
deprives him to live his normal life. The Courts
below failed to take note of this material fact while
determining the compensation, which in our
opinion, calls for interference by this Court.
21. We are not impressed by the submission urged
by the counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as in
our opinion in the absence of any rebuttal evidence
adduced by respondent No.1 and in the light of the
findings recorded by the Courts below mentioned
supra, the submission is found to be devoid of any
merit and it is accordingly rejected.
12
Page 13
22. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals
filed by the claimant succeed and are hereby
allowed. Impugned order is modified in
appellant-claimant’s favour by awarding a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- by way of compensation against
respondent No.1-Corporation. An awarded sum, i.e.
Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. 4 lakhs) would carry interest at
the rate of 6% per annum payable from the date of
claim petition till realization. No costs.
………...................................J. [J. CHELAMESWAR]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi; September 18, 2015.
13