☐By the way of appeal appellant seek to challenge the judgment passed by the High Court of Madras.
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
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 11
th
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 85
0
- 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 Limited
3
, 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
2/3
rd
of right leg circumferentially.
Decreased sensation over the M/3
rd
of
Right leg.
Left leg: Hypertrophic scar over
middle 3
rd
to distal 3
rd
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 1
st
present. Fixed
Flexim deformity of II Joints of toes
about 10
th
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 10
th
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 Mohan
5
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
Legal Notes
Add a Note....