Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 5256 OF 2008

SANJAY VERMA  ... APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

HARYANA ROADWAYS ... RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. This  quantum  appeal  is  by  the  claimant  seeking  

further enhancement of the compensation awarded by the  

High  Court  of  Uttaranchal  at  Nainital  by  its  Order  dated  

27.03.2006.   

2. The  facts  relevant  for  the  purpose  of  the  present  

adjudication may be noticed at the outset.   

1

Page 2

On  12.08.1998  the  appellant-claimant  was  travelling  

from  Ambala  to  Kurukshetra  in  a  bus  belonging  to  the  

Haryana  Roadways  and  bearing  registration  No.  HR-07PA-

0197. On the way the driver of the bus lost control over the  

vehicle resulting in an accident in the course of which the  

claimant suffered multiple injuries.  He was initially treated in  

the  civil  hospital  Pehwa and  thereafter  transferred  to  the  

PGIMER,  Chandigarh  on  14.08.1998.   The  appellant  

underwent  surgery  on  16.09.1998  and  eventually  he  was  

released from the hospital and referred to the Rehabilitation  

Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Aligarh.  According to the  

claimant,  apart  from  other  injuries,  he  had  suffered  a  

fracture of the spinal cord resulting in paralysis of his whole  

body.   In  these  circumstances  the  claimant  filed  an  

application  before  the  Motor  Accident  Claim  Tribunal  

claiming compensation of a total sum of Rs.53,00,000/- under  

different heads enumerated below:

(i) Pecuniary loss Rs. 24,00,000.00

(ii) Expenditure incurred in treatment till now

Rs.   2,00,000.00

2

Page 3

(iii) Expenses which shall be incurred in future in treatment

Rs.  3,00,000.00

(iv) Cost of attendant from the date of accident till he remains alive

Rs.  2,00,000.00

(v) Passage and diet money  Rs.  2,00,000.00

(vi) Pain and suffering and mental agony

Rs. 20,00,000.00

Total Rs.53,00,000.0 0

3. The learned Tribunal by its  Award dated 12.06.2000  

held  that  the  accident  occurred  due  to  the  rash  and  

negligent driving of the bus and that the claimant is entitled  

to compensation.  The total amount due to the claimant was  

quantified  at  Rs.  3,00,000/-  under  the  heads  “Loss  of  

Income”,  “reimbursement  of  medical  expenses”  and “pain  

and suffering”.  The learned Tribunal also awarded interest at  

the rate of 9% from 24.08.1999 i.e. the date of filing of the  

claim application till date of payment.

4. Aggrieved,  the  claimant  filed  an  appeal  before  the  

High  Court  which  enhanced  the  compensation  to  

Rs.8,08,052/-.  The High Court quantified the amount due to  

3

Page 4

the  claimant  towards  “loss  of  income”  at  Rs.6,19,500/-;  

Rs.1,38,552/-  on  account  of  “medical  expenses”  and  an  

amount of Rs.50,000/- “for future treatment” and “pain and  

suffering”.  The High Court,  however, reduced the interest  

payable to 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the  

application.  Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

5. We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel  

for  the appellant-claimant  and Dr.  Monika Gusain,  learned  

counsel for the respondent.  

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that  

in computing the amount due to the appellant on account of  

loss of income, future prospects of increase of income had  

not been taken into account by the High Court; the multiplier  

adopted  by  the  courts  below  is  15  whereas  the  correct  

multiplier  should have been 18.   In  so far  as the amount  

awarded        for “future treatment” and “pain and suffering”  

is concerned, learned counsel has submitted that not only  

the  amount  of  Rs.50,000/-  is  grossly  inadequate  but  High  

Court  has  committed  an  error  in  clubbing  the  two heads  

4

Page 5

together  for  award  of  compensation.   In  this  regard  the  

learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the  

amounts claimed in the claim petition under the aforesaid  

two heads, as already noticed hereinabove.  It is submitted  

by the learned counsel that the amount of compensation is  

liable to be enhanced.   

7. Controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of  

the  appellant,  Dr.  Monika  Gusain  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondent-Haryana  Roadways  has  submitted  that  the  

enhancement made by the High Court to the extent of over  

Rs.5,00,000/- is more than an adequate measure of the “just  

compensation”  that  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988  

(hereinafter for short the “Act”) contemplate.  It is also the  

submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that in  

awarding the enhanced amount  the High Court  has taken  

into  account  all  the  relevant  circumstances  for  due  

computation of the amount of compensation payable under  

the Act.  

8. Before proceeding any further it would be appropriate  

5

Page 6

to  take  note  of  the  evidence  tendered  by  PW-1,  Dr.  

Shailendra Kumar Mishra, who was examined in the case on  

behalf of the claimant.  The relevant part of the evidence of  

PW-1 is extracted below:

“………..Medical  Board  granted  80%  disability  of  Sanjay Verma during the course of examination.  Today  I  re-examined  Mr.  Sanjay  Verma  in  the  Court, at the time of issuance of certificate, it was  the  opinion that  his  condition may improve,  but  even after such a long duration his condition has  deteriorated, in place of improvement.

Today he has become cent  percent  paralyzed.  Now Sanjay Verma is unable to perform his day to  day needs such as latrine and urination could not  be done of his own.  A tube has been inserted into  his urinary tract along with a bag which he has to  use entire life.  There will be no control over his  toilet and urine which he might have been doing  on his bed.

He will not be able to move throughout his life  due to the paralysis below waist and he is now not  been able to do any work.  The Spinal chord will be  pressurized due to the facture of back bone and he  will  have  to  bear  the  pain  throughout  his  life.  Sanjay Verma will not be able to lead his normal  life  and  will  have  remain  in  the  same condition  throughout his life.  Due to his laying position he  will  be  effected  by  bed  sores  which  will  be  excessive  painful.   Due  to  lack  of  urination  in  normal  course  his  kidney  may be damaged  and  this possibility will always remain.”

“………At  the  time  of  issuance  of  handicapped  certificate  I  had  also  given  100%  disability  

6

Page 7

certificate  but  thinking that  he  might  improve,  I  had given a certificate 80% disability.  The cutting  over the certificate No.16 G has been done by me  which bears my signature.  This cutting was also  done at the time of issuance of the certificate.  As  per  the  prescribed  standard,  at  the  time  when  patient  was examined by the  medical  board,  he  was  also  suffering  from  the  total  paralysis  and  100%  disability  but  because  patient’s  toe  was  having  slight  movement,  therefore,  it  was  unanimously decided that  for the time being his  disability is 80%.”

9. It is also established by the materials on record that  

the age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 25  

years and he was married. The age of his wife was 22 years  

and at the time of the accident the claimant had one son  

who was 1½ years of age.  Apart from the above, from the  

deposition of the claimant himself (PW-2) it transpires that  

after the accident he is not able to do any work and “one  

person is always needed to look after him”.   

10. Having noticed the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Shailendra  

Kumar Mishra and the other facts and circumstances of the  

case we may now proceed to determine as to whether the  

compensation awarded by the High Court under the different  

heads noticed above is just and fair compensation within the  

7

Page 8

meaning of Section 168 of the Act.   

11. The appellant was a self employed person. Though he  

had claimed a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, the Income Tax  

Returns filed by him demonstrate that he had paid income  

tax on an annual income of Rs.41,300/-.  No fault, therefore,  

can be found in the order of the High Court which proceeds  

on the basis that the annual income of the claimant at the  

time  of  the  accident  was  Rs.41,300/-.   Though  in  Sarla  

Verma  (Smt.)  and  Others  vs.  Delhi  Transport  

Corporation and Another1 this Court had held that in case  

of  a  self  employed  person,  unless  there  are  special  and  

exceptional circumstances, the annual income at the time of  

death  is  to  be taken into account,  a  Coordinate  Bench in  

Santosh  Devi  vs.  National  Insurance  Company  Ltd.   

and  Others2 has  taken  a  different  view  which  is  to  the  

following effect:

“14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any  rationale for the observation made in para 24 of  the judgment in  Sarla Verma case that  where  the  deceased  was self-employed or  was  on a  fixed  salary  without  provision  for  annual  

1  (2009) 6 SCC 121 2  (2012) 6 SCC 421

8

Page 9

increment, etc., the courts will usually take only  the actual income at  the time of death and a  departure from this rule should be made only in  rare  and  exceptional  cases  involving  special  circumstances. In  our view, it  will  be naïve to  say that the wages or total emoluments/income  of  a  person  who  is  self-employed  or  who  is  employed on a fixed salary without provision for  annual increment, etc., would remain the same  throughout his life.”

12. The view taken in  Santosh Devi  (supra)  has been  

reiterated by a Bench of three Judges in Rajesh and Others  

vs. Rajbir Singh and Others3 by holding as follows :  

“8. Since,  the  Court  in  Santosh  Devi  case  actually intended to follow the principle in the  case of salaried persons as laid down in  Sarla  Verma case and to make it  applicable also to  the self-employed and persons on fixed wages,  it  is  clarified  that  the  increase  in  the  case  of  those groups is not 30% always; it will also have  a reference to the age. In other words, in the  case  of  self-employed  or  persons  with  fixed  wages, in case, the deceased victim was below  40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to  the  actual  income  of  the  deceased  while  computing  future  prospects.  Needless  to  say  that the actual income should be income after  paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in  case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to  50 years.

9. In Sarla Verma case, it has been stated that  in the case of those above 50 years, there shall  

3  (2013) 9 SCC 54

9

Page 10

be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in  the  case  of  those  self-employed  or  on  fixed  wages,  where  there  is  normally  no  age  of  superannuation, we are of the view that it will  only be just and equitable to provide an addition  of 15% in the case where the victim is between  the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make  the  compensation  just,  equitable,  fair  and  reasonable. There shall normally be no addition  thereafter.”

13. Certain  parallel  developments  will  now have  to  be  

taken note of.  In Reshma Kumari and Others vs.  Madan  

Mohan and Another4, a two Judge Bench of this Court while  

considering the following questions took the view that  the  

issue(s) needed resolution by a larger Bench

“(1) Whether the multiplier specified in the Second  Schedule  appended  to  the  Act  should  be  scrupulously applied in all the cases?

(2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand,  the Act provides for any criterion, particularly as  regards determination of future prospects?”

14. Answering the above reference a three Judge Bench  

of  this  Court  in  Reshma  Kumari  and  Ors.  vs. Madan  

Mohan and Anr.5 reiterated the view taken in Sarla Verma  

4  (2009) 13 SCC 422 5  (2013) 9 SCC 65 (para 36)

10

Page 11

(supra) to the effect that in respect of a person who was on a  

fixed salary without provision for annual increments or who  

was self-employed the actual income at the time of death  

should  be  taken  into  account  for  determining  the  loss  of  

income  unless  there  are  extraordinary  and  exceptional  

circumstances.   Though  the  expression  “exceptional  and  

extraordinary circumstances” is not capable of any precise  

definition,  in  Shakti  Devi  vs.  New  India  Insurance  

Company  Limited  and  Another6  there  is  a  practical  

application of the aforesaid principle.  The near certainty of  

the regular employment of the deceased in a government  

department following the retirement of his father was held to  

be a valid ground to compute the loss of income by taking  

into account the possible future earnings. The said loss of  

income, accordingly,  was quantified at  double the amount  

that the deceased was earning at the time of his death.  

15. Undoubtedly,  the  same  principle  will  apply  for  

determination of loss of income on account of an accident  

resulting in the total disability of the victim as in the present  

6  (2010) 14 SCC 575

11

Page 12

case.  Therefore, taking into account the age of the claimant  

(25 years)  and the  fact  that  he  had a  steady income,  as  

evidenced by the income-tax returns, we are of the view that  

an  addition  of  50% to  the  income that  the  claimant  was  

earning at the time of the accident would be justified.   

16. Insofar  as  the  multiplier  is  concerned,  as  held  in  

Sarla Verma (supra) (para 42) or as prescribed under the  

Second Schedule to the Act,   the correct  multiplier  in  the  

present case cannot be 15 as held by the High Court.    We  

are of the view that the adoption of the multiplier of 17 would  

be appropriate. Accordingly, taking into account the addition  

to the income and the higher multiplier the total amount of  

compensation payable to the claimant under the head “loss  

of income” is Rs. 10,53,150/-   (Rs. 41300 + Rs. 20650= Rs.  

61,950 x 17).          

17. In so far as the medical expenses is concerned as the  

awarded amount of Rs.1,38,552/- has been found payable on  

the basis of the bills/vouchers etc. brought on record by the  

claimant we will have no occasion to cause any alteration of  

12

Page 13

the  amount  of  compensation  payable  under  the  head  

“medical  expenses”.   Accordingly,  the  finding  of  the  High  

Court in this regard is maintained.

18. This will bring us to the grievance of the appellant-

claimant  with  regard  to  award  of  compensation  of  

Rs.50,000/- under the head “future treatment” and “pain and  

suffering”.  In  view  of  the  decisions  of  this  Court  in  Raj  

Kumar  vs. Ajay  Kumar  and  Another7  and   Sanjay  

Batham  vs.  Munnalal Parihar and Others8 there can be  

no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  above  two  heads  of  

compensation  are  distinct  and  different  and  cannot  be  

clubbed together.  We will, therefore, have to severe the two  

heads which have been clubbed together by the High Court.   

In so far as “future treatment” is concerned we have no  

doubt that the claimant will be required to take treatment  

from time to time even to maintain the present condition of  

his health. In fact, the claimant in his deposition has stated  

that  he is  undergoing treatment  at  the  Apollo Hospital  at  

7  (2011) 1 SCC 343 8  (2011) 10 SCC 665

13

Page 14

Delhi.   Though  it  is  not  beyond  our  powers  to  award  

compensation beyond what has been claimed [Nagappa vs.  

Gurudayal Singh and others9], in the facts of the present  

case we are of the view that the grant of full compensation,  

as claimed in the claim petition i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- under the  

head  “future  treatment”,  would  meet  the  ends  of  justice.  

We, therefore, order accordingly.  

19. The  claimant  had  claimed  an  amount  of  

Rs.20,00,000/-  under  the  head  “pain  and  suffering  and  

mental  agony”.  Considering the  injuries  sustained by the  

claimant  which  had  left  him  paralyzed  for  life  and  the  

evidence of PW-1 to the effect that the claimant is likely to  

suffer  considerable pain throughout his life,  we are of the  

view that the claimant should be awarded a further sum of  

Rs. 3,00,000/-  on account of “pain and suffering”.   We must,  

however, acknowledge that monetary compensation for pain  

and suffering is at best a palliative, the correct dose of which,  

in the last analysis, will have to be determined on a case to  

case basis.   

9  (2003) 2 SCC 274

14

Page 15

20.  In the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident  

Claim Tribunal  the  claimant  has  prayed  for  an  amount  of  

Rs.2,00,000/- being the cost of attendant from the date of  

accident till he remains alive.  The claimant in his deposition  

had stated that “he needs one person to be with him all the  

time”.   The  aforesaid  statement  of  the  claimant  is  duly  

supported by the evidence of PW-1 who has described the  

medical  condition  of  the  claimant  in  detail.   From  the  

aforesaid materials, we are satisfied that the claim made on  

this  count  is  justified  and  the  amount  of  Rs.2,00,000/-  

claimed by the claimant under the aforesaid head should be  

awarded in full. We order accordingly.  

21. In  view of  the  discussions  that  have  preceded,  we  

hold that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation  

as set out in the table below:

Sl.  No.

Head Amt. as per High  Court

(in Rs.)

Amt. as per this Court (in Rs.)

(i) Loss of Income 6,19,500.00 10,53,150.00

(ii) Medical Expenses       1,38,552.00 1,38,552.00

(iii) Future Treatment

 50,000.00

3,00,000.00

15

Page 16

(iv) Pain and suffering and mental agony

(v) Cost of attendant from the date  of  accident  till  he  remains alive

2,00,000.00

Total= 8,08,052.00 19,91,702.00

22. In view of the enhancement made by us, we do not  

consider it necessary to modify the rate of interest awarded  

by the High Court i.e. 6% from the date of the application i.e.  

24.08.1999 to the date of payment which will also be payable  

on the enhanced amount of compensation.

23. The  appeal  filed  by  the  claimant  is  allowed  as  

indicated above.  

...…………………………CJI. [P. SATHASIVAM]

.........………………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

…..........……………………J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

NEW DELHI,

16

Page 17

JANUARY  29, 2014.

17