Court :
Supreme Court of India
Brief :
The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which, the appellant sustained injuries and was awarded pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary damages.
Citation :
CA 8510 OF 2022 DATED 16 NOV 2022
SIDRAM VS DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
CA 8510 OF 2022 DATED 16 NOV 2022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT: Compensation For Future Prospects can be claimed in accident cases involving serious injuries Resulting In Permanent Disablement.
1. The appellant claimant suffered grievous injuries in a road accident that occurred on 18.07.2012, while he was walking on the left side of the Kulgod-Gokak road. While the claimant was near the Laxmeshwar crossing, a goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA-23/9426, being driven in a rash and negligent manner banged into the appellant-claimant.
2. The appellant claimant was shifted to a hospital and was treated as an indoor patient from 18.07.2012 till 06.08.2012. On account of the accident, the appellant-claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45%. The appellant-claimant suffered from paraplegia due to the accident. The appellant-claimant was in the business of selling utensils in different villages of the district.
3. The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition before the First Additional Senior Civil Division Judge & MACT, Belgaum at Belgaum which was registered as the M.V.C. No. 1786 of 2012. Before the Tribunal, the appellant- claimant examined himself (PW-1) and also examined Dr. Anil B. Patil as PW2 in respect of his claim and various other documents were taken on record as evidence
4. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which, the appellant sustained injuries and was awarded pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary damages. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the compensation as under:
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court praying for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have awarded enhanced compensation on the basis of the evidence adduced.
6. The contentions of the appellant will be taken up in detail at a later stage.
7. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9,26,800/-
8. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the High Court, the appellant has appealed to this Court urging various contentions in support of further enhancement of the compensation.
I) The accident had occurred on 18.07.2012 when the appellant claimant was walking on the left side of the Kulgod-Gokak Road, Karnataka when a goods vehicle bearing No. KA-23/9426 dashed against the appellant-claimant, whilst being driven in a rash and negligent manner. In lieu of the same, the appellant-claimant sustained grievous injuries. The appellant-claimant was admitted to Lake View Hospital from 18.07.2012 to 06.08.2012 and was an indoor patient for 19 days. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- had been spent towards his medical expenses. It was observed that there was a permanent physical disability of 45% of the whole body as certified by the doctor and further was a functional disability of 100% as the appellant-claimant is unable to continue with his vocation and unable to find any work in lieu of the accident.
II) It is submitted that the appellant-claimant was hale, healthy and aged only 19 years at the time of the accident. The appellant-claimant being aggrieved, had sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- by filing MYC No.1786/20 12 before the Tribunal.
III) It is submitted that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court have failed to correctly provide/grant compensation under the head 6 "future prospects" as mandated by this Court by only taking the salary of the appellant-claimant to be Rs. 7,000/- and not Rs. 9,000/-. It is submitted that it had been specifically stated by Dr. Anil B. Patil (PW-2) that the appellant would require future medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses as against Rs. 2,50,000/- as stated by PW-2. The High Court has not considered the same at all.
IV) The Appellant , It is pertinent to point out herein that the appellant would be entitled to fair and just compensation in order to place the appellant in such a position as close to how the appellant was living prior to the accident as held by this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, (Para-55) and in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra)(Para-5). This Court has also held in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and Others v. Maharashtra State RoadTransport Corporation and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 90 (Para-36), that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) is a beneficial piece of legislation and hence the object of the Courts ought to be to assist the injured/deceased person.
V) It is pertinent to point out herein that the claim of the appellant -claimant before the Tribunal was only Rs. 25,00,000/-. However, it is submitted that this Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 274, and in Laxman alias Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 756, had categorically stated that there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claim amount.
VI) Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel prayed that there being merit in his appeal, the same may be allowed and the amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly.
I. It is submitted that the present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order whereby the High Court had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 6,13,000/- to Rs. 9,26,800/-. The petitioner by filing the present petition is seeking further enhancement of the award. It is submitted that the High Court after considering the evidence on record and also after considering the MACT award had rightly enhanced the award as claimed by the petitioner as such there is no scope for any further enhancement of the amount in the present petition.
II. It is submitted that the High Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has taken 40% disability for whole body after considering the nature of injury suffered and the evidence of treating doctor, which is 10% more than what has been considered by the Tribunal. The High Court has rightly assessed the future earning as per the law laid down by this Court in Anant son of SidheshwarDukre v. Pratap son of ZhamnnappaLamzane and Another in Civil Appeal No. 8420 of 2018 dated August 21, 2022. The calculation of loss of future earning where the claimant suffers permanent disability as a result of injuries has been dealt in the aforementioned judgment in para no. 7.2. Therefore, under this head there is no scope of enhancement as claimed in the present petition.
III. It is submitted that the appellant therein without any evidence on record is allegedly claiming that the claimant had 100% disability. It is pertinent to submit here that the appellant had miserably failed to produce any document before the Tribunal, the High Court or even in this Court to show that the claimant had 100% disability. The only document relied upon by appellant as regards to the disability of the claimant is the disability certificate which shows that total permanent physical disability of 45% to whole body. No document filed by the appellant is showing that the claimant has 100% disability. Therefore, the contention made by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation on the ground of disability of 100% is nothing but a desire of the claimant to gain sympathy of this Court to grant further amount as enhancement of the award. The approach of the appellant is unhealthy and will set a bad precedent if such pleas are accepted by this Court. In view of the same the present appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
IV. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company prays that there being no merit in the appeal filed by the original claimant, the same may be dismissed.
I. Future Prospects' "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. We have come across 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."
II. Just Compensation' "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 to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives.
Serious injury inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim.
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 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.
III Motor Accident Compensation Claims –
i) 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 - Law regarding determination of compensation discussed - "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 – Courtshould 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. (Para 29-32, 139).
ii) Notional Income - It is not necessary to adduce any documentary evidence to prove the notional income of the 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 - Referred to Kirti and Another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166. (Para 59).
iii) Pecuniary Expenses and Non- Pecuniary Loss - "Future Medical Expenses" and "Attendant Charges" would fall within
the ambit of Pecuniary Expenses - "Pain and suffering" would be categorized as a non-pecuniary 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. (Para 67, 93).
We, therefore, direct respondent No. 1 herein – insurancecompany to pay the appellant-claimant the difference in the compensation awarded herein as against the amount of Rs. 9,26,800/-as awarded by the High Court. The amount awarded by this Court shall be deposited by the respondent No. 1 – insurance company within aperiod of eight weeks from today after adjusting the amount already deposited. The rate of interest at the enhanced amount is to be the same i.e., 6% per annum.
DISCLAIMER: The case law presented here is only for sharing information with readers.
GST Live Certification Course (39th Batch) - April 2024 (Weekend Batch) (With Certificate)
"Live class on Python for Financial Analysis: Unlocking Efficiency in Accounting and Finance"
CAclubindia
