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