NON- REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CIVIL APPEAL NO.10512 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.12045 of 2009)  

Ram Kiran Goyal (D) Thr.Lrs.                        ….Appellants

Versus

Sub Divisional Engineer & Ors.                             …Respondents

JUDGMENT

AFTAB ALAM,J.

1. Delay condoned

2. Leave granted

3. The original appellant, Ram Kiran Goyal @ Ram Karan, who had gone to  

the  Motor  Accident  Claims  Tribunal,  claiming  compensation  for  the  injuries  

suffered by him in a motor accident, is no more. He died during the pendency of   

the appeal and was substituted by his legal representatives, who now pursue the  

claim.  

4. On December 14, 1987, Ram Karan was travelling in a Maruti car on way  

from Delhi  to  Jaipur.  At  about  9.30  in  the  morning,  near  village  Assalwas  on  

Highway No. 8, a truck going ahead of the car suddenly took a right turn without   

giving any indication and as a result the car had a head-on collision with the larger  

vehicle.  In  the accident,  Ram Karan and the  other  occupants  of  the  car  (that   

included his brother, a third person and a fourth person who was driving the car)

received grievous injuries.  Ram Karan received injuries  mainly in  his  legs and  

head. He also got a number of teeth broken that had to be extracted. He remained  

under treatment in a hospital as an indoor patient for three months. At the time of   

the accident he was 42 years old.

5. Ram Karan made an application (M.A.C.T.  Petition  No.  17/1988/1990)  

before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Rewari, claiming rupees six lakhs as  

compensation. It was stated before the Tribunal that, as a result of the injuries  

suffered by him in the accident, he remained under treatment for a long time and  

had spent more than rupees one lakh on his treatment. He further pleaded that in  

the accident he lost all his teeth and due to the injuries suffered in the accident he  

could not stand or walk properly and he could only walk with the help of crutches.   

As a result, he was unable to perform the normal chores and the work that he  

used to do earlier.

6. The Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated April 18, 1991 found and  

held that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the  

truck driver, who took a right turn without giving any signal, knowing fully well that  

National Highway No. 8 is a busy road frequented by heavy vehicular traffic. In   

granting  compensation  to  the  claimant,  however,  the Tribunal  was  rather  tight  

fisted and awarded to him a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/-, with simple interest   

at the rate of 12% per annum. The amount was fixed without any reference to the  

well established heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a case of  

death or injuries caused in a motor accident.

7. Against  the  order  of  the  Tribunal,  Ram Karan,  preferred  appeal  (First  

Appeal from order No. 1184/1991) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A

learned single judge of the High Court allowed the appeal,  enhancing the total  

compensation amount to Rs. 1 lakh with interest at the rate of 12% per annum  

from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The single judge held the claimant   

entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for his disability, Rs. 25,000/- for the pain  

and agony suffered by him and Rs. 10,000/- for future loss of income. In addition,   

the learned single judge awarded the claimant Rs. 15,000/-  towards medicines  

and medical treatment. For fixing the compensation towards medical treatment,  

the single judge took into account some of the vouchers that were produced by  

the claimant.

8. In further  appeal  (L.P.A.  No.  1149/2001)  a division bench of  the High  

Court increased the disability compensation from Rs.  50,000/-  to Rs.1,10,000/-  

and directed that the additional sum of rupees sixty thousand would carry interest  

@ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The compensation  

awarded by the single judge under the other heads was left undisturbed by the  

division bench.

9. The claimant, still not satisfied, brought the matter before this Court.

10. On  hearing  counsel  for  the  parties,  we  are  satisfied  that  the  division  

bench of the high court rightly determined the disability compensation payable to  

the appellant, having regard to the fact that the disability suffered by the appellant  

was medically assessed at  55%. We,  however,  find that  the claimant  was not  

properly  compensated  for  expenses  related  to  treatment,  hospitalization  and  

medicines etc.

11. In a recent decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, this  

Court  has  considered  in  detail  the  different  heads  under  which  compensation

might be payable to a victim of motor accidents. In paragraph 6 of the decision,   

the various elements of compensation are enumerated as under –

“Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

(i)  Expenses  relating  to  treatment,  hospitalization,  medicines,  transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii)  Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have  made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the  injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)”

                           (emphasis added)

12. To us it appears that the claimant was not properly compensated under  

heads I and III. As noted above, the appellant remained in hospital for 3 months   

for his treatment. He lost all his teeth and even after coming out of the hospital he   

had to use crutches for walking and even standing.  A sum of Rs.  15,000/- for   

treatment of such injuries appears to us to be wholly inadequate in the year 1987.   

Moreover, the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant was such that he  

never fully got over the same and continued to be under medical treatment till the  

end of his life. Materials have been brought before this Court to show that he was  

obliged to undergo medical treatment all  his life and with age the extent of his

disability, resulting from the accident, also continued to progress.

13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that an additional sum  

of  Rs.  1,10,000/-  must  be  paid  to  the  appellants  to  adequately  and  properly  

compensate  them  under  the  heads  (i)  ‘expenses  relating  to  treatment,  

hospitalization,  medicines,  transportation,  nourishing  food  and  miscellaneous  

expenditure’ and (ii) ‘future medical expenses’. We order accordingly.

14. The additional amount shall carry simple interest @ 7% per annum from  

the date of application.     

15. It needs to be stated here that we have fixed the aforesaid amount on a  

conservative estimate using our best  judgment.  Nonetheless,  the determination  

has inevitably some indeterminate elements. It will be, therefore, of no use to try  

to see any precedent value in this order.   

16. In the result the appeal is allowed to the limited extent as indicated above.  

The additional amount of compensation along with interest should be paid to the  

appellants within three months from today.    

 …………………………………………J

                  (Aftab Alam)

 …………………………………………J  (Ranjana Prakash Desai)  

New Delhi, December 5,  2011