Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7750             OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 479 of 2012)

Subulaxmi          ...Appellant

Versus

M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation  & Another                    ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T   

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant as claimant filed an application under  

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity  

`the  Act’)  before  the  Motor  Accidents  Claims  Tribunal,  

Srivilliputtur (for short `the tribunal’) forming the subject  

matter of MCOP No. 244 of 1999, putting forth a claim of  

Rs.6,50,000/-  as compensation for  the injuries sustained

Page 2

by her in a motor vehicle accident.  Her claim petition was  

tried  along  with  the  petition  preferred  by  one  Mrs.  

Muthammal, the applicant in MCOP No. 245 of 1999.   

3. The facts which are essential to be exposited are that  

on 13th March, 1998, the claimant-appellant, aged about  

30 years, a match industry worker while travelling in a bus  

bearing registration number TN 59-N0912 belonging to the  

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division  

(V), the respondent No. 2 before the tribunal, met with an  

accident with another bus bearing registration number TN  

59-N0912 belonging to the Madurai Division (I) of the said  

Corporation, the respondent No. 1 therein.  The accident  

occurred because of careless and negligent driving of the  

drivers of both the vehicles.  In the accident, the claimant  

suffered grievous injuries which eventually resulted in the  

amputation of left  leg below knee and abrasion in right  

shoulder and later amputation of right foot.  It was averred  

that she was earning a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month at the  

time of accident and remained in the hospital for a period  

of  five  and  half  months.   Computing  the  amount  

expended,  pain  and  suffering,  incapacity  to  have  any  

2

Page 3

future income and the deprivation of other amenities of  

life  and  future  comforts  she  claimed  a  sum  of  

Rs.6,50,000/-  as  compensation.     The tribunal  granted  

Rs.2,00,000/-  as  compensation  by  award  dated  

22.10.2002  and  fastened  the  liability  on  both  the  

respondents.  It is necessary to state here that the tribunal  

had  awarded  Rs.86,000/-  towards  permanent  disability  

assessing the same at 86%, Rs.14,000/- towards pain and  

suffering, Rs.66,000/- on the head of loss of future income,  

Rs.10,000/-  for  medical  expenses,  Rs.15,000/-  towards  

extra  nourishment,  Rs.5,000/-  for  loss  of  income during  

the  treatment  period  and  Rs.4,000/-  towards  transport  

charges.   

4. Being  grieved  by  the  award,  the  Corporation  

preferred  C.M.A.  No.  2964  of  2003  and  the  claimant  

preferred  Cross  Objection  (MD)  No.  45  of  2008  for  

enhancement  of  the  quantum.   The  High  Court,  while  

computing the amount of compensation, did not grant any  

amount for permanent disability but enhanced the future  

income  to  Rs.1,15,000/-  and  added  Rs.75,000/-  for  

replacement  of  artificial  limb  and  for  future  medical  

3

Page 4

expenses.  It also granted Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities  

and Rs.10,000/-  towards attendant charges.   On certain  

heads  it  also  marginally  enhanced  the  amount  as  a  

consequence  of  which  the  amounts  stood  enhanced  to  

Rs.2,75,000/-.   It  is  apt  to  mention  here  that  the  High  

Court  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  claimant  was  

entitled for compensation for loss of earning capacity due  

to disability and both were to be in compartment.  It also  

did  not  grant  interest  on  the  enhanced  sum.   In  the  

ultimate eventuate the High Court vide its judgment dated  

14.7.2010 rejected the appeal filed by respondent No. 1  

and allowed the cross-objection in part.  Being dissatisfied,  

the  claimant  has  preferred  the  present  appeal  for  

enhancement of the amount of compensation.  

5. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts  

as have been adumbrated are not in dispute.  Therefore,  

first we shall advert to the issue whether the High Court  

was justified in awarding compensation on a singular head  

relating to permanent disability and loss of future earning.  

In  K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and  

Another1, after  referring  to  Ramesh  Chandra  v.  1 2012 (10) SCALE 516

4

Page 5

Randhir Singh2 and  B. Kothandapani  v. Tamil Nadu  

State  Transport  Corporation  Ltd.3,  this  Court  

expressed  the  view  that  compensation  can  be  granted  

towards  permanent  disability  as  well  as  loss  of  future  

earnings,  for  one  head  relates  to  the  impairment  of  

person’s capacity and the other relates to the sphere of  

pain and suffering and loss  of  enjoyment of  life  by the  

person himself.  The Bench also relied upon  Laxman  v.  

Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and  

another4, wherein it has been laid down thus: -

“The ratio of the above noted judgments is  that  if  the  victim  of  an  accident  suffers  permanent  or  temporary  disability,  then  efforts  should  always  be  made to  award  adequate  compensation  not  only  for  the  physical injury and treatment, but also for  the pain, suffering and trauma caused due  to accident,  loss of earnings and victim’s  inability  to  lead  a  normal  life  and  enjoy  amenities,  which  he  would  have  enjoyed  but  for  the  disability  caused  due  to  the  accident.”

Thus, the view expressed by the High Court on this score  

is not sustainable. 2 (1990) 3 SCC 723 3 (2011) 6 SCC 420 4 2012 ACJ 191

5

Page 6

6. Be it noted, the High Court has granted Rs.20,000/-  

for  pain  and  suffering  and  Rs.10,000/-  for  loss  of  

amenities.   In  this  context,  we  may  profitably  refer  to  

Govind  Yadav v.  New  India  Insurance  Company  

Limited5,  wherein  this  Court  after  referring  to  the  

pronouncements in  R.D. Hattangadi  v. Pest Control  

(India)  (P)  Ltd.6,  Nizam’s  Institute  of  Medical   

Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka7, Reshma Kumari  

v. Madan Mohan8, Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India  

Assurance Co. Ltd.9 and  Raj Kumar  v. Ajay Kumar10  

has laid down as under: -

“In  our  view,  the  principles  laid  down  in  Arvind  Kumar  Mishra v.  New  India  Assurance Co. Ltd. and  Raj Kumar v.  Ajay  Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals  and  the  High  Courts  in  determining  the  quantum of  compensation  payable  to  the  victims of accident, who are disabled either  permanently or temporarily. If the victim of  the  accident  suffers  permanent  disability,  then  efforts  should  always  be  made  to  award adequate compensation not only for  the physical injury and treatment, but also  for the loss of earning and his inability to  lead  a  normal  life  and  enjoy  amenities,  

5 (2011) 10 SCC 683 6 (1951) 1 SCC 551 7 (2009) 6 SCC 1 8 (2009) 13 SCC 422 9 (2010) 10 SCC 254 10 (2011) 1 SCC 343

6

Page 7

which he would have enjoyed but  for  the  disability caused due to the accident.”

Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state whether in the  

said  case,  the  compensation  awarded  to  the  claimant-

victim  was  just  and  reasonable  or  he  was  entitled  to  

enhanced compensation under certain heads, namely,  (i)  

Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of  

leg; (ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent  

disability; (iii) Future medical expenses; (iv) Compensation  

for  pain,  suffering  and  trauma  caused  due  to  the  

amputation of leg; (v) Loss of amenities including loss of  

the prospects of marriage; and (vi) Loss of expectation of  

life.

7.  It  is  seemly  to  state  that  in  the  said  case,  the  

tribunal  had  awarded  Rs.2,56,800/-  and  the  High  Court  

had  enhanced  the  same  to  Rs.3,06,000/-.   This  Court  

considering various aspects granted Rs.4,53,600/- in lieu  

of loss of earning, Rs.2,00,000/- towards future treatment,  

Rs.1,50,000/-  for  pain,  suffering  and  trauma  and  

Rs.1,50,000/-  towards loss of amenity and enjoyment of  

life  and  thereby  determined  the  total  amount  to  

7

Page 8

Rs.9,53,600/-.  While determining the said sum, the Bench  

observed as follows: -  

“25. The  compensation  awarded  by  the  Tribunal  for  pain,  suffering  and  trauma  caused due to the amputation of  leg was  meager.   It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  appellant had remained in the hospital for a  period  of  over  three  months.   It  is  not  possible for the tribunals and the courts to  make a precise assessment of the pain and  trauma suffered by a person whose limb is  amputated as a result of accident. Even if  the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he  will suffer from different kinds of handicaps  and  social  stigma  throughout  his  life.  Therefore,  in  all  such cases,  the  tribunals  and the courts should make a broad guess  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  amount  of  compensation.

26. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the  appellant was a young man of 24 years. For  the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma  of  not  being  able  to  do  his  normal  work.  Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will  be  met  by  awarding  him  a  sum  of  Rs1,50,000  in  lieu  of  pain,  suffering  and  trauma  caused  due  to  the  amputation  of  leg.

27. The  compensation  awarded  by  the  Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also  meager.  It  can  only  be  a  matter  of  imagination  as  to  how  the  appellant  will  have to live for the rest of his life with one  artificial leg. The appellant can be expected  to  live  for  at  least  50  years.  During  this  period  he  will  not  be  able  to  live  like  a  normal human being and will not be able to  enjoy  life.  The  prospects  of  his  marriage  have  considerably  reduced.  Therefore,  it  

8

Page 9

would be just and reasonable to award him  a  sum  of  Rs1,50,000  for  the  loss  of  amenities and enjoyment of life.”

8. We  have  reproduced  from  the  said  decision  in  

extenso, as the Court has dwelled upon the fundamental  

concept  of  just  compensation  regard  being  had  to  the  

value of life and limb in our country.  Needless to say, the  

approach in such matters has to be liberal as well  as a  

balanced one.  

9. In the case at hand, the tribunal had awarded a sum  

of Rs.86,000/- towards the permanent disability.  The High  

Court has deleted it.  The said deletion as per our above  

discussion  is  impermissible.   In  our  considered  opinion  

regard  being  had  to  the  nature  of  injury  suffered  and  

further  taking  note  of  the  date  of  accident,  a  sum  of  

Rs.1,00,000/-  on  this  head  would  be  appropriate  and,  

accordingly, we so determine.

10. Presently,  we shall  proceed to compute the loss of  

earning capacity.  The claimant was earning Rs.1,500/- per  

month and thereby Rs.18,000/- per annum.  As she has  

suffered 86% permanent disability, the future earning may  

9

Page 10

be computed at 14% less and accordingly it is estimated  

that the multiplicand should be Rs.15,480/- per annum.  At  

the time of accident, she was 30 years of age, and hence,  

the multiplier of 18 would be applicable, as has been held  

in  Sarla  Verma  v.  D.T.C.11.   Thus,  the  loss  of  future  

earning by multiplying the multiplicand of Rs.15,480/- by  

multiplier of 18, the amount would come to Rs.2,78,640/-.

11. As far as the pain and suffering and loss of amenities  

are concerned, we think it is appropriate to grant a sum of  

Rs.1,00,000/-.  In respect of other heads, namely, medical  

expenses, extra nourishment, transport charges and loss  

of earning during treatment, the amount awarded by the  

High  Court  is  allowed  to  remain  as  such.   Thus,  the  

amount  on  the  aforesaid  scores  would  come  to  

Rs.45,000/-.  As far as the future replacement of artificial  

limbs and other medical expenses are concerned, keeping  

in  view  the  escalation  of  price,  we  think  it  seemly  to  

enhance it Rs.1,25,000/-.

12. Presently to the grant of interest.  The High Court has  

declined  to  award  interest  on  the  enhanced  sum.   No  

11 (2009) 6 SCC 121

1

Page 11

reason has been ascribed therefor.  Section 171 of the Act  

deals with award of interest.  It reads as follows: -

“171.  Award  of  interest  where  any  claim is allowed.  – Where any Claims  Tribunal allows a claim for compensation  made under this Act, such Tribunal may  direct that in addition to the amount of  compensation  simple  interest  shall  also  be paid at such rate and from such date  not earlier than the date of making the  claim as it may specify in this behalf.”

13. In  Abati  Bezbaruah  v.  Dy.  Director  General,   

Geological Survey of India and Another12, S.B. Sinha,  

J.  in  his  opinion  after  referring  to  the  earlier  decisions  

opined that the question as to what should be the rate of  

interest would depend upon the facts and circumstances  

of each case and award of interest would normally depend  

on the bank rate prevailing at that time.  A.R. Laxmanan,  

J. in his concurring opinion stated as follows: -

   “The rate of interest must be just and  reasonable depending upon the facts and  circumstances  of  each  case  and  taking  all  relevant  factors  including  inflation,  change  of  economy,  policy  being  adopted by Reserve Bank of India from  time  to  time,  how  long  the  case  is  pending, permanent injuries suffered by  

12 (2003) 3 SCC 148

1

Page 12

the victim, enormity of suffering loss of  future income, loss of enjoyment of life  etc., into consideration.”

14. In  Tamil  Nadu  State  Transport  Corporation,   

Tanjore,  represented  by  its  MD  v.  Natarajan  and  

others13, this Court awarded interest at the rate of 9%  

per annum from the date of filing of claim petition on the  

amount of compensation.

15. Thus  analysed,  we  are  disposed  to  think  that  the  

High  Court  has  erred  in  not  granting  interest  on  the  

enhanced sum.  As is evincible, the tribunal had granted  

payment  of  interest  at  the  rate  of  9%  per  annum.  

Considering  the  totality  of  facts  and circumstances,  we  

find that the interest awarded by the tribunal is just and  

proper and accordingly we direct that the interest on the  

differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate  

9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition  

till  the date of deposit of the same before the tribunal.  

The  respondent  corporation  is  directed  to  deposit  the  

differential amount before the tribunal within a period of  

eight weeks from today.

13 (2003) 6 SCC 137

1

Page 13

16. Consequently,  the  appeal  is  allowed  to  the  extent  

indicated above.  In the facts and circumstances of the  

case, there shall be no order as to costs.

……………………………….J. [K. S. Radhakrishnan]

……………………………….J.             [Dipak Misra]

New Delhi;  November 01, 2012.     

1