Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.168 – Compensation – ‘Just compensation’ – Assessment of – On 08.08.1998, at the age of two years appellant sustained very serious injuries in a motor accident – Tribunal dismissed the claim of appellant on technical grounds – In appeal, the High Court referred the appellant/claimant before Medical Board for examination and assessment of permanent disability – Medical Board opined that the disability caused to appellant was almost 100% – High Court came to the conclusion that appellant was entitled to be compensated, and directed first respondent-Insurance Company, to pay quantified compensation of Rs. 13.34 lakhs with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of the payment – Compensation was awarded under heads of a) Attender Charges, b) Pain and Sufferings and Loss of Amenities, c) Marriage Prospects, d) Future Medical Treatment and e) Grant of additional amount for special diet – Plea before Supreme Court for grant of ‘just compensation’ by enhancement of compensation under the various heads – Held: The evidence on record show that the injuries sustained by appellant in the motor accident virtually doomed her future – The corporeal independence was lost forever – The state of her lower limbs, as revealed from the photographs supporting the certification of the opinion of the Medical Board, suggested that she could never be cursorial or even, stretch her legs – In troth, she could not stand sans support – She lost all her amenities and marriage prospects – The contextual situation revealed an impossibility to bring back the appellant to her original position – On careful scrutiny of the heads of compensation, bearing in mind the decision in Kajal’s case, the appellant is entitled to grant of enhancement of compensation on certain grounds – Appellant entitled to total enhanced amount of Rs. 24.90 lakhs (comprising of enhanced amounts towards attender charges; pain and sufferings and loss of amenities; marriage prospects; future medical treatment and grant of additional amount for special diet) in addition to the amount already awarded by the High Court – Insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum with effect from 29.08.2018 till the date of deposit.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The evidence on record would undoubtedly show that the appellant had sustained very serious injuries in a motor accident involving the two vehicles mentioned hereinbefore and the same virtually doomed her future. The corporeal independence is lost forever. The state of appellant’s lower limbs, as revealed from the photographs supporting the certification of the opinion of the Medical Board, would suggest that she could never be cursorial or even, stretch her legs. In troth, she could not stand sans support. Needless to say, she lost all her amenities and marriage prospects. The contextual situation reveal that it was an impossibility to bring back the appellant to her original position. [Paras 6 and 7][963-E-G; 964-A]
2. On careful scrutiny of the heads of compensation, bearing in mind the decision of Kajal’s case, it is clear that the appellant is entitled to enhancement/grant, of compensation on certain grounds.
2.1 Attender Charges:- Towards ‘attender charges’ the High Court has granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1 Lakh. In Kajal case, this Court held that when compensation is awarded in lumpsum, various factors had to be taken into consideration and usually for ordering grant of lumpsum amount this Court always followed a multiplier system. The High Court has rightly identified the multiplier by looking into the table in Sarla Verma’s case as
15. The physical condition of the appellant would, undoubtedly, reveal that she would require lifelong services of two attendants. Following the decision in Kajal’s case, in that regard Rs. 10,000/- per month can be granted and at that rate the annual amount would come to Rs. 1,20,000/-. Applying the multiplier of
15 the amount payable would be Rs. 18 lakh. [Paras 10][965-EH]
2.2 Pain and Sufferings and Loss of Amenities:- Under the head of ‘Pain and Sufferings” and “Loss of Amenities” a total of Rs. 3 lakh (1,50,000 each) was granted by the High Court. In Kajal’s case this Court referred to with agreement the decision in Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. whereunder, while dealing with the issue of award under this head, it was held that it should be at least Rs. 6 lakhs if the disability is more than 90%. Since the disability in this case was already assessed as more than 90% in the light of the aforesaid decision, an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs is additionally granted to the appellant idest after deducting Rs. 3 lakhs from Rs. 6 lakhs. [Para 10.1.4][969-C-E]
2.3 Marriage Prospects:- No amount whatsoever was granted by the High Court for loss of marriage prospects. In Kajal’s case this Court declined to interfere with fixation of Rs. 3 lakhs under that head by the Tribunal concerned. There is no reason to deny such an amount viz., Rs. 3 lakhs to the appellant for the loss of marriage prospects, taking into account her physical condition. [Para 10.1.4][969-E-F]
2.4 Future Medical Treatment: - The appellant was awarded only an amount of Rs. 1 lakh under that head by the High Court. Considering the nature of the injuries and the present physical condition of the appellant, in future she will have to face a lot of medical problems keeping in view of her young age and taking into account the life expectancy of an average Indian. This Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs. 1 lakh more to the appellant. [Para 10.1.4][969-G]
2.5 Grant of additional amount for special diet:- Besides, it would be appropriate to grant some additional amount for special diet. The appellant was awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards Extra Nourishment. It is common knowledge that consumption of normal food by a person who is practically bedridden is not advisable and what is advisable is to have a special dietary to avoid putting on weight. In the circumstances, she may have to spend amount for keeping her body fit, as far as possible, to adapt to the situation. This Court is inclined to grant Rs. 90,000/- more in addition to the amount of Rs. 10,000/- granted under the head ‘Extra Nourishment’. [Para 10.1.4][970-A-C]
3.1. In view of the enhancement/grant, of compensation the award granted by the High Court under the impugned judgment would stand modified by granting an enhancement amount of Rs. 24,90,000/- in addition to amount already awarded by the High Court. The insurance company shall be liable to deposit the said enhanced amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum with effect from 29.08.2018 till the date of deposit. [Paras 11 and 12][970-C-D, F-G]
3.2. Since this Court has granted compensation in excess of what is claimed and the appellant had remitted court fee for the claim of Rs. 30 lakhs the appellant is liable to pay the balance court fee for the amount granted in excess of Rs. 30 lakhs. [Para 15][971-G-H]
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017)
16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 – followed.
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413 : [2020] 3 SCR 622; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179; Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098; Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 : [2013] 2 SCR 706 and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 : [2013] 5 SCR 961 – relied on.
Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (2014) 14 SCC 396 : [2013]
8 SCR 268; Abhimanyu Pratap Singh v. Namita Sekhon & Anr. (2022) 8 SCC 489 and Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 – referred to.
Philipps v. London & South Western Railway Co. (1879) LR 5 QBD 78 (CA) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.