NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2695       OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.33820/2010)

Rudra  ...Appellant(s)

- Versus -

Divisional Manager, ...Respondent(s) National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1. Application  for  deletion  of  respondent  No.2  

from the array of parties is allowed.

2. Leave granted

3. On 15.12.2002, at about 1.30 pm, the appellant  

was walking on the road when a BMTC bus (bearing  1

No.  KA-01-A-3638)  came  in  high  speed  and  dashed  

against the appellant, as a result of which the  

appellant  sustained  multiple  injuries  and  was  

admitted in hospital for operation and treatment.

4. The appellant was aged 25 years and was working  

as  a  coolie.  He  filed  a  claim  petition  under  

Section  166  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988  

claiming Rs.4 lacs as compensation with interest @  

18%. He also claimed that he was earning a monthly  

income of Rs.4000/- p.m.

5. Apparently, when the appellant was admitted to  

hospital  immediately  after  the  accident,  he  was  

conscious and well oriented and his breath smelled  

of  alcohol.  Hence,  the  respondent  contended  that  

the accident occurred solely due to the negligence  

of the appellant.

6. However,  the  Tribunal  did  not  accept  this  

argument  of  the  respondent.  It  held  that  merely  

2

because the appellant had consumed alcohol did not  

mean that the driver of the vehicle did not need to  

drive  the  vehicle  cautiously.  Thus,  the  Tribunal  

concluded  that  the  accident  occurred  due  to  the  

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle  

as  a  result  of  which  the  appellant  sustained  

injuries.

7. The Tribunal concluded that as the appellant  

was a coolie, his daily earnings would be Rs.100/-  

per  day,  as  the  appellant’s  claim  that  he  was  

earning  Rs.4000/-  p.m.  was  unsupported  by  

documentary evidence. The Tribunal considered the  

fact that the appellant had been in hospital for at  

least a month and, therefore, it awarded an amount  

of  Rs.3000/-  towards  loss  of  income  during  

treatment  period.  The  doctor  had  assessed  

disability of the appellant’s left lower limb at  

58% and that of the whole body at 29%. Considering  

the nature of the injuries (fracture of the ankle  

and foot), it awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and  

3

suffering, Rs.2000/- towards medical expenses, and  

Rs.3000/-  towards  nourishment.  The  Tribunal  also  

awarded global compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards  

loss  of  amenities  as  the  appellant  could  not  

normally carry out his occupation with the weight  

of  the  body  on  it.  Thus,  total  compensation  

amounted to Rs.40,000/-, payable at 8% p.a. rate of  

interest.

8. On appeal before the High Court of Karnataka,  

the  Court  took  the  view  that  assessment  of  

disability by the doctor of the left lower limb at  

58% and the whole body at 29% appeared to be a bit  

of an exaggeration. Thus, it reassessed the whole  

body disability at 15% for calculating compensation  

payable towards loss of future income. Accordingly,  

adopting a multiplier of 18 since the appellant was  

aged 25 years, it computed loss of future income  

(which had not been awarded by the Tribunal at all)  

at  Rs.97,200/-  (Rs.3000  X  12  X  18  X  15/100).  

However,  it  enhanced  compensation  for  pain  and  

4

suffering to Rs.20,000/-, Rs.5000/- for conveyance,  

nourishing  food  and  attendant  charges,  Rs.9000/-  

towards loss of income during period of treatment  

(taking income of appellant at Rs.3000/- p.m. for 3  

months). Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal was  

modified  and  compensation  was  enhanced  to  

Rs.1,48,200/-, with interest at 6% p.a.

9. Still dissatisfied with the compensation amount  

awarded,  the  appellant  filed  the  present  appeal  

before this Court. Having gone through the records  

and after hearing the parties, we are of the view  

that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

10. When  the  doctor  had  assessed  whole  body  

disability at 29%, and the same was accepted by the  

Tribunal,  the  High  Court  erred  in  rejecting  the  

same and instead of presuming disability of 15% of  

the whole body. Hence, we re-compute loss of future  

income  by  considering  disability  at  29%,  which  

5

amounts  to  Rs.1,87,920/-  (Rs.3000  X  12  X  18  X  

29/100).  

11. The doctor, in his evidence, has also stated  

that  the  nature  of  disability  is  such  that  the  

appellant cannot work as a coolie or do any other  

manual work. Hence, we award compensation for loss  

of amenities to Rs.40,000/-, for pain and suffering  

to Rs.30,000/-, for medical expenses to Rs.10,000/-  

and  for  conveyance,  nourishment  and  attendant  

charges to Rs.20,000/-.

12. The break-up of compensation is as follows:

Pain and suffering - Rs.30,000/-

Loss of amenities - Rs.40,000/-

Medical expenses - Rs.10,000/-

Conveyance, nourishment and attendant  

charges - Rs.20,000/-

Loss of future income - Rs.1,87,920/-

Loss of income during treatment - Rs.9,000/-

TOTAL - Rs.2,96,920/- 6

13. Thus,  total  compensation  amounts  to  

Rs.2,96,920/-,  which  is  rounded  off  to  

Rs.3,00,000/-.  The  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  

Court  is  hereby  modified,  awarding  Rs.3,00,000/-  

with  interest  of  6%  p.a.  on  the  enhanced  sum,  

payable from the date of the claim petition till  

realization.

14. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

15. No order as to costs.

.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

.......................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) March 18, 2011   

7