Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4880    OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16561 of 2013)

V. Mekala                               …Appellant Versus

M. Malathi & Anr.    … Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  is  preferred  by  the  injured-

claimant as she was aggrieved  by the impugned  

judgment and award dated 31.8.2012 passed by

Page 2

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Madras  in  

C.M.A.  No.  2131  of  2008  even  though  it  has  

enhanced the compensation from 6,46,000/- to  

18,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%  

per annum from the date of filing the claim  

petition  under  various  heads  urging  various  

facts  and  grounds  in  justification  of  her  

claim.

3. The  claimant-appellant  is  aggrieved  by  the  

determination of monthly notional income of the  

deceased by the High Court by taking  a meager  

sum of 6,000/- instead of 18,000/-  per month  

as  she  is  a  student  studying   in  the  11th  

Standard holding first rank in her school. She  

had an excellent career ahead of her but for  

the  accident  in  which  she  has  sustained  

grievous injuries and has become a permanently  

disabled.  Both  the  Motor  Accident  Claim  

Tribunal,  Poonamallee  (for  short  “the  

2

Page 3

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

Tribunal”)  as  well  as  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature  at  Madras  failed  to  take  into  

consideration all the relevant legal aspects of  

the  matter  namely,  having  arrived  at  the  

conclusion that on account of permanent total  

disablement suffered by the claimant-appellant  

on  account  of  injuries  sustained  in  the  

accident  her future loss of income should have  

been  assessed  taking  into  consideration,  her  

age at the time of accident which was 16 and  

that she is a brilliant student and could have  

acquired  professional degree and  procured  a  

well  paid  job  either  in  public  or  private  

sector thereby at least she would have earned a  

sum of  18,000/- per month. Also, the future  

prospects  of  revision  of  wages,  dearness  

allowance, increments and promotional benefits  

could  have  been  earned  by  her.   However,  

because  of  the  accident  caused  by  rash  and  

negligent act of the driver of the offending  

3

Page 4

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

vehicle of the owner- respondent she has been  

deprived of her potential income to eke out a  

comfortable  livelihood  as  she  has  become  

permanently  disabled,  this  legal  and  factual  

aspect has not been taken into consideration  

both  by  the  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court.  

Therefore,  she  placed  reliance  upon  the  law  

laid down by this Court in the case of Santosh  

Devi v.  National  Insurance  Company  Ltd.  &  

Ors.1, having regard to her age, 50% of the  

future prospects should have been added  by  

both the Tribunal and Appellate Court to the  

notional monthly income that could be fixed for  

determination of the loss of earning as she had  

lost her earning capacity as she has become  

permanently  disabled.  Therefore,  the  

compensation  under  this  head  of  loss  of  

earnings  is  required  to  be  enhanced  

considerably.

1 (2012) 6 SCC 421

4

Page 5

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

4. The second ground sought to be pressed into  

operation by the learned counsel on behalf of  

the claimant-appellant is that the concurrent  

finding of fact recorded by the High Court on  

the basis of evidence of Doctor-PW2, who has  

examined  the  appellant,  who  has  made  

observations  regarding  the  nature  of  her  

injuries which will be recorded in the later  

part of this judgment.

5. Upon examination of the claimant-appellant, the  

Doctor-PW2  opined  that  she  is  not  able  to  

squat, her disability is ascertained at 70%,  

therefore, she is not able to sit with cross  

legged comfortably on the floor and the right  

range of movement (Gionimeter) – fixed flexim  

deformity of 850  - ligament instability present  

on account of grievous  injuries sustained by  

her in the unfortunate accident. Therefore, PW2  

has assessed the permanent disability of the  

5

Page 6

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

claimant-appellant  at 70% and to this effect  

he  has  issued  Ex.  P12-the  Disability  

Certificate  and  the  same  was  marked  as  an  

exhibit  in  justification  of  the  claim  for  

awarding just and reasonable compensation under  

the loss of earning, pain and suffering, loss  

of amenities and mental agony. The above said  

substantial piece of evidence in the form of  

disability certificate on record has not been  

taken  into  consideration  in  the  proper  

perspective by the High Court though it has  

concurred with the finding of fact recorded by  

the Tribunal in re-appreciating the evidence on  

record.  The  legal  aspect  of  the  matter  

regarding  the  quantum  of  compensation  is  

required  to  be  dismissed  and  awarded  to  

compensate  for  human  pain  and  suffering  and  

deprivation  of  happiness  and  enjoyment  of  

personal life of the claimant. The compensation  

that would be awarded can not be equated with  

6

Page 7

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

the human sufferings or personal deprivation as  

observed  by  this  Court  in  the  case  of  R.D.  

Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. &  

Ors.2.  

6. Both  the  Tribunal  and  Appellate  Court  were  

required to consider the fall in the value of  

money which requires continuing reassessment of  

these  awards  and  periodic  reassessments  of  

damages at certain key points in the pattern  

where  the  disability  is  readily  identifiable  

and  are  not  subject  to  large  variations  in  

individual cases as held in the case of  R.D.  

Hattangadi  (supra).  Therefore,  the  learned  

counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-

appellant submits that pain and suffering, loss  

of amenities having lost both the limbs which  

are the relevant important material facts which  

have  been  completely  ignored  by  both  the  

Tribunal and the High Court while determining  2 (1995) 1 SCC 551

7

Page 8

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

the just and reasonable compensation under the  

aforesaid heads while awarding compensation in  

favour  of  the  claimant.  Therefore,  learned  

counsel for the appellant requested this Court  

for an award of just & reasonable compensation  

under the aforesaid heads by applying the legal  

principles laid down by this Court in the cases  

referred  to  supra.  In  support  of  his  

contention, the learned counsel has correctly  

relied upon the principle laid down in the case  

of R.D. Hattangadi (supra) which was reiterated  

in  the  case  of  Govind  Yadav  v.  New  India  

Insurance  Company  Limited3,  it  would be  appropriate  to  extract  certain relevant  

paragraphs of R.D. Hattangadi case, which read  

as under:  

“10. In cannot be disputed that because of the  accident  the  appellant  who  was  an  active  practising  lawyer  has  become  paraplegic  on  account of the injuries sustained by him. It is  really difficult in this background to assess  the exact amount of compensation for the pain  

3 (2011) 10 SCC 683

8

Page 9

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

and agony suffered by the appellant and for  having  become  a  life  long  handicapped.  No  amount of compensation can restore the physical  frame of the appellant. That is why it has been  said  by  courts  that  whenever  any  amount  is  determined as the compensation payable for any  injury suffered during an accident, the object  is to compensate such injury "so far as money  can  compensate"  because  it  is  impossible  to  equate the money with the human sufferings or  personal  deprivations.  Money  cannot  renew  a  broken and shattered physical frame. 11. In the case Ward v. James [1965] 1 All  E.R. 563 it was said : Although  you  cannot  give  a  man  so  gravely  injured much for his "lost years", you can,  however, compensate him for his loss during his  shortened span, that is, during his expected  "years of survival". You can compensate him for  his loss of earnings during that time, and for  the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance.  But  how  can  you  compensate  him  for  being  rendered a helpless invalid? He may owing to  brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the  rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be  unable  to  rise  from  his  bed.  He  has  lost  everything that makes life worth-while. Money  is no good to him. Yet judges and juries have  to do the best they can and give him what they  think is fair. No wonder they find it well nigh  insoluble. They are being asked to calculate  the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for  the most part a conventional sum. The judges  have worked out a pattern, and they keep it in  line with the change in the value of money.”

9

Page 10

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

7. The learned counsel for the appellant further  

submitted that the claimant-appellant has been  

deprived of the enjoyment of life as well as  

the marital prospects. Further, the concurrent  

finding  recorded  by  the  High  Court  in  the  

impugned judgment shows that the appellant on  

account  of  the  knee  injuries  and  permanent  

disablement and mal-united knee bones, she is  

unable  to  walk  without  crutches  and  she  is  

suffering from severe pain while walking and  

further the thickness of both the legs are also  

reduced due to the injuries sustained by her in  

accident and multiple surgeries were conducted  

on her. This relevant aspect should have been  

taken into consideration both by the Tribunal  

and the High Court. Further, she has to use  

crutches throughout her life for mobility which  

she is required to periodically purchase, the  

cost of which has not been awarded either by  

the Tribunal or by the High Court. Therefore,  

10

Page 11

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  

requested   this  Court  to  award  suitable  

compensation  keeping  in  view  the  above  

mentioned facts.  

 8. On  the  other  hand,  Ms.  Manjeet  Chawla,  the  

learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No.  

2-Insurance  Company  sought  to  justify  the  

impugned judgment and award contending that the  

High  Court  after  re-appreciation  of  the  

pleadings  and  evidence  on  record  has  

exorbitantly  enhanced  the  compensation  under  

the  various  heads  mentioned  in  the  impugned  

judgment such as pain and suffering, permanent  

disablement,  medical  expenses,  transport  

expenses,  extra  nourishment,  loss  of  future  

career  and  loss  of  marriage  prospects.  

Therefore,  this  is  not  a  fit  case  for  this  

Court to enhance the compensation as prayed in  

this case by the claimant-appellant.

11

Page 12

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

9. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent  

No. 2 submits that the claimant-appellant can  

continue  her  studies  by  attending  to  the  

college and get either the public employment or  

alternative private employment on completion of  

her studies. In such circumstances, seeking for  

enhancement  of  compensation  either  under  the  

head of loss of earning or future prospects as  

claimed  by  the  claimant-appellant,  is  not  

justifiable  in  law.  Therefore,  the  learned  

counsel for the respondent No.2 has prayed for  

dismissal of the Civil Appeal.

10. With reference to the above rival factual and  

legal contentions, this Court is required to  

examine:-  

1) Whether  the  claimant-appellant  is  entitled   to  enhancement  of  compensation  under  the  following  heads namely, loss of earning, pain  

12

Page 13

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

and  suffering,  loss  of  amenities,  loss  of  enjoyment  of  marriage  prospects and the cost of crutches?

2) What award?

11. The first question is required to be answered  

in  favour  of  the  claimant-appellant  for  the  

following reasons :-

Having  regard  to  the  nature  of  following  

injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident  

which is an undisputed fact :-

“Right lower limb: Hypertrophic scar  extending from distal thigh to distal  2/3rd of right leg circumferentially.  Decreased sensation over the M/3rd of  Right leg.

Left  leg:  Hypertrophic  scar  over  middle 3rd to distal 3rd of left leg  and  with  patchy  areas  decreased  sensation over the scar.

Muscle  wasting  of  both  the  legs  present.

Right  Ankle:  Equinous  deformity  of  Right  ankle  of  1st present.  Fixed  Flexim deformity of II Joints of toes  about 10th present.”

13

Page 14

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

12. The Doctor-PW 2, has stated in his evidence  

that the appellant has sustained fracture in  

both bones in both the legs, the knee folding  

is restricted between 25 degree to 85 degree  

and the legs could not be stretched fully and  

the knee bones are mal-united and the appellant  

cannot walk without crutches. The doctor also  

stated  that  the  appellant  is  suffering  from  

severe  pain  while  walking  and  further  the  

thickness  of  the  appellant’s  both  legs  were  

reduced.

13. The  aforesaid  evidence  of  the  Doctor-PW2  is  

accepted by the Tribunal and concurred by the  

High Court, the High Court came to the right  

conclusion  that  the  appellant  has  sustained  

permanent  disablement,  the  same  is  in  

conformity with the principle laid down by this  

Court in the case of  Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar  

and Anr.4  at para 12, which reads thus : 4 (2011) 1 SCC 343

14

Page 15

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

“12. Therefore,  the  Tribunal  has  to  first  decide  whether  there  is  any  permanent disability and, if so, the  extent  of  such  permanent  disability.  This  means  that  the  Tribunal  should  consider and decide with reference to  the evidence:

(i) whether  the  disablement  is  permanent or temporary;

(ii) if  the  disablement  is  permanent,  whether  it  is  permanent  total  disablement  or  permanent  partial  disablement;

(iii) if  the  disablement  percentage is expressed with  reference  to  any  specific  limb,  then  the  effect  of  such disablement of the limb  on  the  functioning  of  the  entire  body,  that  is,  the  permanent  disability  suffered by the person.

If the Tribunal concludes that there is  no permanent disability then there is no  question  of  proceeding  further  and  determining the loss of future earning  capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes  that there is permanent disability then  it will proceed to ascertain its extent.  After the Tribunal ascertains the actual  extent  of  permanent  disability  of  the  claimant based on the medical evidence,  it  has  to  determine  whether  such  

15

Page 16

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

permanent  disability  has  affected  or  will affect his earning capacity.”

14. The High Court on the basis of medical evidence  

on record with reference to the fractures sustained  

by the appellant to both the legs, rightly arrived  

at  the  conclusion  that  she  has  suffered  70%  of  

permanent disablement and therefore she was awarded  

the compensation under the head of loss of earning  

in  the  impugned  judgment  taking  into  account  

monthly notional income of  6,000/- in the absence  

of any document on record as she was a student.  

This assumption of the courts below is on the lower  

side in view of the observations made by this Court  

in  R.D. Hattangadi  (supra). The said principle is  

reiterated in  Govind Yadav  (supra). The relevant  

para from  R.D. Hattangadi  is extracted below :

“14.  In  Halsbury's  Laws  of  England,  4th  Edition,  Vol.  12  regarding  non-pecuniary  loss at page 446 it has been said: Non-pecuniary  loss;  the  pattern.  Damages  awarded for pain and suffering and loss of  amenity constitute a conventional sum which  is taken to be the sum which society deems  

16

Page 17

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

fair,  fairness  being  interpreted  by  the  courts in the light of previous decisions.  Thus  there  has  been  evolved  a  set  of  conventional  principles  providing  a  provisional  guide  to  the  comparative  severity  of  different  injuries,  and  indicating a bracket of damages into which  a  particular  injury  will  currently  fall.  The  particular  circumstances  of  the  plaintiff,  including  his  age  and  any  unusual  deprivation  he  may  suffer,  is  reflected  in  the  actual  amount  of  the  award.

The fall in the value of money leads to a  continuing  reassessment  of  these  awards  and to periodic reassessments of damages  at certain key points in the pattern where  the disability is readily identifiable and  not  subject  to  large  variations  in  individual cases.”

     (Emphasis laid by the Court)

15. In  view  of  the  aforesaid  judgments  of  this  

Court  and  the  fact  that  the  appellant  is  a  

brilliant student as she has secured first rank in  

the  10th Standard,  she  would  have  had  a  better  

future in terms of  educational career to acquire  

basic or master degrees in the professional courses  

and she could have got a suitable either public or  

private  employment  but  on  account  of  permanent  

17

Page 18

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

disablement she suffered due to injuries sustained  

by her in the accident, that opportunity is lost to  

her and  therefore, she is entitled to compensation  

as per law laid down by this Court in the cases of  

Raj  Kumar,  R.D.  Hattangadi   and Govind  Yadav  

(supra).  

16. Further, having regard to the undisputed fact  

that  there  has  been  inflation  of  money  in  the  

country since the occurrence of the accident, the  

same has to be taken into account by the Tribunal  

and Appellate Court while awarding compensation to  

the claimant-appellant as per the principle laid  

down by this court in the case of  Govind Yadav  

which has reiterated the position of Reshma Kumari  

v. Madan  Mohan5 case,  the  relevant  paragraph  of  

which reads as under:  

“46. In the Indian context several other  factors should be taken into consideration  including education of the dependants and  the nature of job. In the wake of changed  societal  conditions  and  global  scenario,  

5 (2009) 13 SCC 422

18

Page 19

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

future prospects may have to be taken into  consideration  not  only  having  regard  to  the  status  of  the  employee,  his  educational  qualification;  his  past  performance  but  also  other  relevant  factors, namely, the higher salaries and  perks  which  are  being  offered  by  the  private  companies  these  days.  In  fact  while  determining  the  multiplicand  this  Court  in  Oriental  Insurance  Co.  Ltd. v.  Jashuben held that even dearness allowance  and perks with regard thereto from which  the  family  would  have  derived  monthly  benefit,  must  be  taken  into  consideration.”

17. The fact that the appellant was a brilliant  

student at the time of the accident should also be  

taken  into  consideration  while  awarding  

compensation to her. Therefore, taking  6,000/- as  

monthly  notional  income  by  the  Tribunal  for  the  

purpose of awarding compensation under this head is  

too meager an amount. The learned counsel appearing  

for  the  respondent  No.2  contended  that  the  

appellant can still finish her education and find  

employment and therefore, there is no necessity to  

enhance the amount of compensation under the head  

19

Page 20

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

of ‘loss of income’ and ‘future prospects’. It is  

pertinent  to  reiterate  here  that  the  claimant/  

appellant has undergone and undergoing substantial  

pain and suffering due to the accident which has  

rendered  both  her  legs  dysfunctional.  This  has  

reduced the scope of her future prospects including  

her marriage substantially. Moreover, a tortfeasor  

is  not  entitled  to  dictate  the  terms  of  the  

claimants-appellants career as has been held by the  

Karnataka High Court in the case of  K. Narsimha  

Murthy  v. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company  

Ltd and Anr. ILR 2004 KARNATAKA 2471, the relevant  

paragraph of which reads as under:

“41. …. Further, it needs to be emphasized  that it is not the right of the tortfeasor  or  a  person  who  has  taken  over  the  liability  of  the  tortfeasor  in  terms  of  and  under  the  Act  to  dictate  that  the  injured person should do some other work,  manual or otherwise, it does not matter,  may be with pain and discomfort, in order  to  minimize  his  or  its  liability.  Such  insistence is untenable in law and if such  is the case, it would violate basic human  rights  of  the  injured  person.  In  this  case, the appellant is reduced to such a  

20

Page 21

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

state that he is unable to do any work,  manual  or  otherwise,  without  subjecting  himself to pain and suffering, agony and  discomfort. In an accident, if a man is  disabled  for  a  work  which  he  was  doing  before  the  accident,  that  he  has  no  talents, skill, experience or training for  anything else and he is unable to find any  work, manual or clerical, such a man for  all  practical  purposes  has  lost  all  earning capacity he possessed before and  he is required to be compensated on the  basis  of  total  loss.  In  reaching  this  conclusion we may derive support from the  judgments  in  Daniels  v.  Sir  Robert  Mc  Alpine and Sons Limited and Blair v. FJC  Lilley  (Marine)  Limited.  Secondly,  the  physical  incapacity  to  earn  income  sustained  by  the  appellant  is  not  temporary, but permanent and complete as  per Exhibit P. 43. Thirdly, it cannot be  said  that  since  the  appellant  has  sustained  only  54%  permanent  physical  disability in respect of the whole body as  per  P.W.  3,  the  Court  should  take  into  account functional disability also at 54%  only while assessing the loss of earning  capacity. Such hypothesis does not stand  to reason nor can it be accepted as valid  in  terms  of  law.  An  injured  person  is  compensated for the loss which he incurs  as a result of physical injury and not for  physical  injury  itself.  In  other  words,  compensation  is  given  only  for  what  is  lost  due  to  accident  in  terms  of  an  equivalent in money insofar as the nature  of money admits for the loss sustained. In  an accident, if a person loses a limb or  eye or sustains an injury, the Court while  

21

Page 22

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

computing damages for the loss of organs  or physical injury, does not value a limb  or  eye  in  isolation,  but  only  values  totality of the harm which the loss has  entailed the loss of amenities of life and  infliction of pain and suffering: the loss  of the good things of life, joys of life  and  the  positive  infliction  of  pain  and  distress.”   

18. Further,  it  has  been  held  in  the  case  of  

Reshma Kumari (supra) that certain relevant factors  

should be taken into consideration while awarding  

compensation under the head of future prospect of  

income. The relevant paragraph read as under:  

“27.  The  question  as  to  the  methodology  required to be applied for determination  of  compensation  as  regards  prospective  loss of future earnings, however, as far  as  possible  should  be  based  on  certain  principles.  A  person  may  have  a  bright  future  prospect;  he  might  have  become  eligible  to  promotion  immediately;  there  might  have  been  chances  of  an  immediate  pay  revision,  whereas  in  another  the  nature  of  employment  was  such  that  he  might not have continued in service; his  chance of promotion, having regard to the  nature  of  employment  may  be  distant  or  remote.  It  is,  therefore,  difficult  for  any court to lay down rigid tests which  should be applied in all situations. There  are divergent views. In some cases it has  been  suggested  that  some  sort  of  

22

Page 23

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

hypotheses  or  guess  work  may  be  inevitable. That may be so.”

19. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid  

down in the aforesaid case, it would be just and  

proper for this Court,  and keeping in mind her  

past  results  we  take  10,000/-  as  her  monthly  

notional  income  for  computation of  just  and  reasonable compensation under the head of loss of  

income. Further, the High Court has failed to take  

into consideration the future prospects of income  

based on the principles laid down by this Court in  

catena of cases referred to supra. Therefore, the  

appellant  is  justified  in  seeking  for  

re-enhancement under this head as well and we hold  

that  the  claimant-appellant  is  entitled  to  50%  

increase under this head as per the principle laid  

down by this Court in the case of  Santosh Devi  

(supra). The relevant paragraph reads as under:  

“13.  In  Sarla  Verma's  case  (supra),  another  two  Judge  Bench  considered  various factors relevant for determining  

23

Page 24

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

the  compensation  payable  in  cases  involving  motor  accidents,  noticed  apparent  divergence  in  the  views  expressed  by  this  Court  in  different  cases,  referred  to  large  number  of  precedents  including  the  judgments  in  U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra  (1996) 4 SCC  362, Nance v. British Columbia Electric  Railway Company Ltd. 1951 AC 601, Davies  v.  Powell  Duffryn  Associated  Collieries  Ltd. 1942 AC 601 and made an attempt to  limit the exercise of discretion by the  Tribunals  and  the  High  Courts  in  the  matter of award of compensation by laying  down  straightjacket  formula  under  different  headings,  some  of  which  are  enumerated below:

(i) Addition to income for future prospects  In  Susamma  Thomas  this  Court  increased  the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit  the income was increased only by 50% and  in  Abati  Bezbaruah  the  income  was  increased by a mere 7%. In view of the  imponderables  and  uncertainties,  we  are  in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb,  an addition of 50% of actual salary to  the actual salary income of the deceased  towards  future  prospects,  where  the  deceased  had  a  permanent  job  and  was  below 40 years. (Where the annual income  is  in  the  taxable  range,  the  words  "actual salary" should be read as "actual  salary less tax"). The addition should be  only 30% if the age of the deceased was  40  to  50  years.  There  should  be  no  addition, where the age of the deceased  is more than 50 years.

24

Page 25

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

Though  the  evidence  may  indicate  a  different percentage of increase, it is  necessary to standardise the addition to  avoid different yardsticks being applied  or different methods of calculation being  adopted.  Where  the  deceased  was  self- employed  or  was  on  a  fixed  salary  (without provision for annual increments,  etc.), the courts will usually take only  the actual income at the time of death. A  departure therefrom should be made only  in rare and exceptional cases involving  special circumstances.

Therefore, taking both the aspects into account,  

the total amount of compensation under this head is  

calculated as Rs.22,68,000/- [( 10,000/-x 70/100 +  

10,000 x 70/100 x 50/100) x 12 x 18]

20.  The  compensation  under  the  head  pain  &  

suffering and mental agony was awarded by the High  

Court after recording concurrent finding with the  

award passed by the Tribunal. However, the courts  

below have not recorded the nature of the permanent  

disablement  sustained  by  the  appellant,  while  

awarding  1,00,000/- under this head which is too  

meager an amount and is contrary to the judgment of  

25

Page 26

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

R.D. Hattangadi and Govind Yadav cases (supra). The  

relevant paragraphs of  Govind Yadav case read as  

under:  

“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 Rs 1,50,000 in lieu of pain, suffering  and trauma caused due to the amputation of  leg.”

Therefore,  under  this  head  the  amount  awarded  

should be enhanced to 2,00,000/- as the Doctor-PW2  

26

Page 27

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

has  opined  that   at  the  time  of  walking  with  

support of crutches, the claimant-appellant will be  

suffering pain permanently. Therefore, under this  

head  it  has  to  be  enhanced  from  1,00,000/-  to  

2,00,000/-.

21.  The  loss  of  amenity  and  attendant  charges  

awarded by the courts below at 1,00,000/- is also  

too  meager  an  amount  as  the  appellant  has  

permanently lost her amenity of both the legs. For  

the purpose of walking, squatting, running and also  

studying throughout her life and particularly, at  

the  advanced  age,  she  will  be  requiring  the  

attendant  for  giving  assistance  to  attend  the  

nature’s call and also at the time of sitting or  

moving around. Therefore, the compensation at this  

head is required to be  enhanced from  1,00,000/-  

to  2,00,000/- based upon the principle laid down  

by this court in  Govind Yadav case (supra), the  

relevant paragraph of which reads as under:

27

Page 28

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

“27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal  for the loss of amenities was also meagre. 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 would  be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs  1,50,000 for the loss of amenities and enjoyment  of life.”

22.  The amount of compensation awarded under the  

head of ‘Loss of enjoyment of life and marriage  

prospects’  at  2,00,000/-  is  totally  inadequate  

since  her  marriage  prospect  has  substantially  

reduced and on account of permanent disablement she  

will be deprived of enjoyment of life. Therefore,  

it  would  be  just  and  proper  to  enhance  the  

compensation from 2,00,000/- to 3,00,000/-. In so  

far as, purchase of crutches periodically, it would  

be just and proper to award a sum of 50,000/-.

 23. Further,  the  accident  had  taken  place  on  

11.4.2005 and the claimant- appellant, since then  

28

Page 29

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

has been fighting for justice, first, in the Motor  

Accident Claim Tribunal, then the High Court and  

finally before us. Therefore, we consider that she  

is rightfully entitled to the cost of litigation as  

per the principle laid down by this Court in the  

case  of  Balram  Prasad v. Kunal  Saha  &  Ors.6  

Therefore, we award a sum of  25000/- under the  

head of ‘cost of litigation’.  

24. Thus, the claimant-appellant in this appeal is  

entitled  to  a  total  amount  of  30,93,000/-  as  

compensation with an interest @ 9% per annum based  

on  the  principle  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  

Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi,  Delhi  v.  Uphaar  

Tragedy Victims Association & Ors.7 from the date  

of  filing  of  the  application  till  the  date  of  

payment.  

25.The Insurance Company is directed to deposit 50%  

of  the  awarded  amount  with  proportionate  

6  (2014) 1 SCC 384 7 (2011) 14 SCC 481

29

Page 30

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

interest  within  four  weeks  from  the  date  of  

receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting  

the  amount  if  already  paid,  in  any  of  the  

Nationalized  Bank  of  the  choice  of  the  

appellant, for a period of 3 years. During the  

said period, if she wants to withdraw a portion  

or entire deposited amount for her personal or  

any other expenses, including development of her  

asset,  then  she  is  at  liberty  to  file  

application before the Tribunal  for release of  

the deposited amount, which may be considered by  

it and pass appropriate order in this regard.  

The rest of 50% amount awarded with  

proportionate  interest  shall  be  paid  to  the  

appellant/claimant by way of a demand draft within  

four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of  

this  judgment.  The  Insurance  Company  is  further  

directed to submit compliance report before this  

court within five weeks thereafter.

30

Page 31

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No. 16561 of 2013

26. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

                           ………………………………………………………………………J.

            [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

              ………………………………………………………………………J.             [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi, April 25, 2014

31