Sidram vs The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

HELD: 1.1 The process of determining the compensation by the court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of injury and disability. The principle consistently followed by this Court in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. [Para 29, 30][420-H; 421-A-C]

1.2 It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. There are many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim’s death. [Para 31][421-C-E]

1.3 ‘‘Just compensation” should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives. Making a monetary assessment of the injury suffered is the only process devised to compensate the victim. The process of making such an assessment, whether in case of death or injury, is provided in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act which requires that the tribunals constituted under the Act determine compensation, which appears to be ‘just’. Thus, the Act vests a wide discretion upon the tribunals. [Para 32, 38][421F-G; 430-A-B]

1.4 Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim’s having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge’s mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. [Para 113][473-E-G]

2.1 The courts must apply the multiplier method, while ascertaining the compensation to be awarded to the victim. [Para 53][453-G]

2.2 The evidence on record indicates that the appellant suffered paraplegia due to the accident. Paraplegia is a form of paralysis of lower body. It restricts everyday routine more particularly the physical activity and leads to (i) deprivation of simple pleasures and amenities of life, (ii) 100% loss of earning capacity, (iii) long term secondary complications requiring continuous care, medical treatment and hospitalization, (iv) feeling of helplessness, depression, anger, stress, anxiety, etc. In short, paraplegia impairs physical, mental and psychological health and has devastating impact on the social and financial well being of the victim. In the case on hand, the appellant was in the business of selling utensils and used to travel to various villages to sell the same. With this disability in the form of paraplegia being suffered by the appellant, it is not possible for him now to walk a long distance or stand for a long period. His business could be said to have been gravely impacted. Further, the appellant at the time of accident was just 19 years old. The High Court enhanced his notional income from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month. The appellant claimed that his notional income be determined at Rs. 9,000/-.Thus, more particularly keeping in mind the dictum of this Court in the case of Kirti’s case that it is not necessary to adduce any documentary evidence to prove the notional income of the victim and the Court can award the same even in the absence of any documentary evidence. The Court should ensure while choosing the method and fixing the notional income that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. Thus, the notional income of the appellant is determined at Rs. 8,000/- per month. The same would result in the compensation being enhanced as under: 8000 x 12 x 18 x 45% = INR 7,77,600/- [Para 56, 57, 59, 60][455-C-E; 456-A-C]

2.3 Compensation under the head loss of earning for 6 months was awarded by the tribunal and the High Court. The tribunal awarded only Rs. 40,000/- under this head. The High Court enhanced it to Rs. 42,000/-. The payment towards loss of earning for six months as awarded by the High Court is upheld and applying the revised income, enhance the same as under: 8000 x 6 = INR 48,000/- [Para 61, 62][456-D-E]

2.4 The appellant claims Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. In this regard, the appellant adduced documentary evidence in the form of medical bills/receipts to the tune of Rs.1,54,931/-, as stated in the order of the tribunal. The compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- is granted towards medical expenses. [Para 63, 66][456-F; 457-B]

2.5 The “Future Medical Expenses” and “Attendant Charges” would fall within the ambit of Pecuniary Expenses. The tribunal observed that the doctor has deposed that the appellant is likely to incur expenses of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards future medical expenses. However, according to the Tribunal, there was no sufficient and cogent evidence in that regard under this head. Accordingly, the tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/-. The High Court thought fit not to award any amount for future medical expenses as there was no evidence adduced by the appellant in regard to future treatment that may be required. The High Court however, thought fit to clarify that in the event if the appellant incurs any expenses towards any surgery or treatment in future on account of the injury suffered and if he proves the same, then the insurer shall indemnify the same. PW-2-doctor deposed categorically that the appellant would require future medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Having regard to the evidence on record that the appellant would be incurring costs towards medical expenses in future along with physiotherapy and nursing and considering that the appellant at the time of accident was 19 years old, today his age would be around 29 years, even if a bare minimum of Rs. 1000/- is spent per month, then it comes to:1000 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 2,16,000/- . Rs. 2,16,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses. [Para 67-69, 72][457-C; 457-F-H; 458-A-B; 459-C]

2.6 Under the head attendant charges, neither the tribunal nor the High Court thought fit to award anything. The evidence on record indicates that the appellant is unable to stand, walk, sit or bend his body or lift anything heavy. It is not in dispute that the appellant will not be able to work in the same manner as he used to prior to the accident. Indisputably, the appellant has suffered from paraplegia on account of the accident and requires an attendant throughout the day. According to the claimant, the cost of keeping the attendant would be Rs. 4,500/- per month. It is fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. An amount of Rs. 4,32,000/- is awarded towards the attendant charges. [Para 73, 76][459-D-E; 462-H]

2.7 The accident took place on 18.07.2012. The appellant is pursuing this litigation for the past almost 10 years. The SLP before this Court was filed in 2018. It has been four years since then. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards litigation expenses. [Para 78, 82][463-B; 465-D]

2.8 For loss of conveyance and special diet, the appellant is granted up to Rs 50,000/- considering that after the accident at Kulgod-Gokak Road, the appellant was shifted to Lakeview Hospital Belgaum wherein he was admitted as an indoor patient from 18.7.2012 to 6.8.2012 for 19 days, and took treatment for the injuries suffered by him, and continued to take the treatment after getting discharged from the hospital as well. Thus, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of conveyance and special diet. [Para 89, 90][467-C-E]

2.9 Pain and suffering would be categorized as a nonpecuniary loss as it is incapable of being arithmetically calculated. Therefore, when compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including the victim’s age, the unusual deprivation the victim has suffered, the effect thereof on his or her future life. Considering that the appellant was only 19 years at the time of the accident and suffered a permanent disability of 45%, he ought to be awarded compensation under this head. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. [Para 93, 96, 98][468-D; 469-F; 469-H]

2.10 A sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of marriage prospects. [Para 103][470-G]

2.11 An amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded for the loss of amenities taking into consideration the fact that the appellant was 19 years old at the time of the accident, and also considering the nature of injuries suffered by him and the extent of his disability. [Para 111][472-H; 473-A]

2.12 The total compensation awarded under different headsloss of earning due to disability, loss of earning for 6 months, medical expenses, future medical expenses, attendant Charges, litigation charges, loss of conveyance, pain and suffering, marriage prospects and loss of amenities is 21,78,600/- [Para 112][473-BD]

2.13 The respondent No. 1-insurance company is directed to pay the appellant-claimant the difference in the compensation awarded as against the amount of Rs. 9,26,800/- as awarded by the High Court. The amount awarded by this Court would be deposited by the respondent No. 1-insurance company within the stipulated period after adjusting the amount already deposited. The rate of interest at the enhanced amount is to be the same i.e., 6% per annum. [Para 114][473-H; 474-A-B]

Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Limited (2011) 10 SCC 683; Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others AIR 2020 SCC 4424 : [2020] SCR 968; Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098; Kirti and Another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166 – relied on. Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another (2022) 7 SCC 738; R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others (1995) 1 SCC 551 : [1995] 1 SCR 75; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179; Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others (2003) 2 SCC 274 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 499; Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others (2012) 6 SCC 421 : [2012] 3 SCR 1178; Jagdish v. Mohan and Others (2018) 4 SCC 571 : [2018] 3 SCR 20; Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others (2020) 4 SCC 413 : [2020] 3 SCR 622; Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another (2003) 7 SCC 197 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 14; Anthony alias Anthony Swamy v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (2020) 7 SCC 161 : [2020] 5 SCR 860; Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited (2014) 2 SCC 735; New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Amit Kumar Yadav and Another F.A.O. Nos. 1285 & 1489 of 2008 decided on March 23, 2022; Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar and Another (2014) 5 SCC 330; Ramesh v. Karan Singh & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 6365 of 2022 dated September 16, 2022; Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another (2010) 10 SCC 254 : [2010] 11 SCR 857; National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100; Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and Others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another (1999)

1 SCC 90 : [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 684; Laxman alias Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another (2011) 10 SCC 756; Anant son of Sidheshwar Dukre v. Pratap son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane and Another Civil Appeal No. 8420 of 2018 dated August 21, 2022; Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others (2019) 7 SCC 217 : [2019] 8 SCR 986;

Neerupam Mohan Mathur v. New India Assurance Company (2013) 14 SCC 15 : [2013] 8 SCR 15;

Nagarajappa v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2011) 13 SCC 323 : [2011] 6 SCR 70; Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar and Others (2012)

2 SCC 267 : [2012] 2 SCR 921; Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and Another (2017) 3 SCC 351; Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176;

Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon and Another (2022) 8 SCC 489; Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways (2014) 3 SCC 210 : [2014] 1 SCR 924; New India Assurance Company Limited v. Gopali and Others (2012) 12 SCC 198 : [2012] 6 SCR 834; Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka and Others (2009) 6 SCC 1 : [2009] 9 SCR 313; Vijaykumar Babulal Modi v. State of Gujarat (Deleted) & Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 2011 SCC OnLine Guj 7349; Virendra Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and Others (2021) ILR 3 All 272; Ibrahim v. Raju and Others (2011) 10 SCC 634 – referred to.

H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England) – referred to.