ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE vs. PRATAP SON OF ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8420 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1159 of 2018) IN THE MATTER OF: Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre                                  …Appellant Versus Pratap Son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Another     …Respondents J U D G M E N T INDU MALHOTRA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present Appeal by Special Leave has been filed against the final judgment and order in F.A. No. 1353 of 2015 dated 25.01.2017   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2018.08.21 17:04:40 IST Reason: 1 Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.  3. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are as follows: 3.1. The Appellant herein is the Claimant, who was 29 year old  at  the   time   of  the   accident,  and   employed  as a driver, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 8,500. On   16.10.2009,   at   about   9:30   a.m.   the   Appellant and his wife were travelling by motorcycle from Pune towards   Tambewasi,   when   a   Maruti   Car   bearing Registration No. MH­14/AE 1108 owned and driven by Respondent   No.   1   collided   with   them.   The   car   was coming from the wrong side of the road, and was trying to   overtake   a   State   Transport   Bus,   when   it   hit   the Appellant’s motor cycle. The Appellant fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries. The Appellant fractured his right thigh, right ankle,   and   right   arm.   He   was   admitted   in   various hospitals   for   treatment,   and   underwent   several 2 operations where steel rods were inserted in his right thigh and right knee. Artificial material was inserted in his right shoulder to facilitate restricted movement. The injuries   suffered   by   the   Appellant   resulted   in Permanent Disability to the extent of 75% for which a Disability Certificate was submitted before the MACT. Appellant also filed an Injury Certificate which records the various injuries suffered by him.  3.2. With respect to the injuries sustained by the wife, a separate Claim Petition was filed before the MACT. The present   Appeal   pertains   only   to   the   claim   for enhancement of compensation made by the Appellant. 3.3. The Appellant filed Claim Petition bearing M.A.C.P. No. 33   of   2014   before   the   Ld.   Motor   Accident   Claims Tribunal, Bhoom seeking compensation under various heads amounting to Rs. 20,00,000 against Respondent No. 1 – the owner of the Maruti Car and Respondent No. 2 –Insurance Company.  3 3.4. The MACT vide Order dt. 07.02.2015 partly allowed the Claim Petition and granted Rs. 7,00,000 as a lump­ sum   compensation   payable   jointly   and   severally   by both   the   Respondents   within   one   month   along   with Interest @ 7% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of the Claim Petition till the date of realization. The   MACT   erroneously   made   a   departure   from   the multiplier method, and granted a lump­sum amount as compensation.   The   Tribunal   did   not   grant compensation under various heads such as actual loss of income, future loss of income, medical expenses, and compensation for permanent disability sustained.  3.5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted   by   the   MACT,   and   the   method   used   for awarding   compensation,   the   present   Appellant   filed First Appeal u/S. 173 of the M.V. Act for enhancement of   compensation,   before   the   High   Court.   The   High Court   vide   its   Judgment   dated   25.01.2017   partly allowed the Appeal by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 14,65,500 with 9% Interest p.a. from the date of 4 application, till realization. The High Court held that lump­sum compensation cannot be awarded, and the multiplier method must be followed. The compensation awarded by the High Court was as follows:

Court by way of the present Appeal by Special Leave Petition.  5 4. We   have   heard   counsel   for   both   parties,   and   carefully perused the record filed before the Court.  The undisputed facts of the present case are: 4.1. Both the Courts below have found from the evidence, that the Respondent was driving his car rashly and negligently. 4.2. The Appellant, who was a young 29 year old on the date   of   the   accident,   has   suffered   serious   injuries which have caused Permanent Disability to the extent of 75%. The Appellant produced his Orthopedic Doctor who corroborated that the Appellant was hospitalized from   25.10.2010   to   09.11.2010,   and   again   from 25.11.2010   to   05.12.2010.   The   Appellant   had sustained   multiple   injuries   which   resulted   in Permanent   Disability   to   the   extent   of   75%   which   is evidenced from the Disability Certificate issued by his Doctor. On account of the Permanent Disability, the Appellant is not able to drive any motor vehicle.  4.3. As a consequence of the accident, the Appellant lost his employment as a driver, and his livelihood. Before the 6 accident,   he   was   drawing   a   monthly   salary   of   Rs. 8,500.   In   order   to   prove   his   income,   the   Appellant produced   his   employer   Mr.   Neeraj   Rajendra   Tiwari before the High Court as Witness No. 3.  Mr. Neeraj Tiwari deposed that he was working as a General Manager in Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. from June,   2008,   and   was   the   head   of   the   Engine Department.   He   further   deposed   that   the   Appellant was employed by him, and was driving his personal car from 01.08.2008 on a monthly salary of Rs. 8,500. He also gave a certificate to that effect.  The High Court erroneously concluded that it would be just and appropriate if the monthly income of the Appellant is considered at Rs. 5,000 on the ground that the salary of Rs. 8500 for a driver was on the higher side.  We do not agree with the reasoning given by the High   Court   for   not   accepting   the   income   of   the 7 Appellant. The income of the Appellant must be taken as Rs. 8500 per month. 4.4. The   Appellant   submitted   that   even   though   his permanent disablement is 75%, his ability to earn his income was reduced by 100%, as he is not able to move or do any work. 5. In   cases   of   motor   accidents   leading   to   injuries   and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non­pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability   to   lead   a   full   life,   and   enjoy   those   things   and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries. 6.  The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is   to   fully   and   adequately   restore   the   aggrieved   to   the position prior to the accident.  8 This Court in  Yadav Kumar v. The Divisional Manager, 1 National   Insurance   Company   Ltd.   explained   “just compensation” in the following words: “It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the Tribunal and the Court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a ‘just compensation’. It is obviously true that determination of   a   just   compensation   cannot   be   equated   to   a bonanza.   At   the   same   time   the   concept   of   ‘just compensation’   obviously   suggests   application   of   fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the   part   of   the   Tribunals   and   Courts.   This reasonableness on the part of the Tribunal and Court must be on a large peripheral field.” 7.  The Appellant would be entitled to compensation as follows: 7.1. The Appellant’s income was Rs. 8,500 per month. The Appellant was 29 year at the time of the accident. The Multiplier laid down in   Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi 2 Transport Corporation and Ors.  would be 17.  7.2. Loss of future income must be calculated in terms of 3 the judgment of this Court in  Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar wherein the Court held that where the claimant suffers a   Permanent   Disability   as   a   result   of   injuries,   the 1  ( 2010 ) 10 SCC 341 2   (2009) 6 SCC 121 3  (2011) 1 SCC 343 9 assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would   depend   upon   the   impact   and   effect   of   the Permanent Disability on his earning capacity. The effect of the Permanent Disability on the earning capacity of the injured must be considered; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings suffered by the claimant. Hence, the compensation to be awarded is calculated as follows: i. Minimum annual income of Appellant = 8,500 x 12 =  Rs. 1,02,000 ii. Loss of future income at the level of his disability (i.e. 75%) = 75% of 1,02,000 = Rs. 76,500 p.a.   iii. Multiplier applicable (29 years) =  17 iv. Loss of future earnings = 76,500 x 17 = Rs. 13,00,500 7.3. The Appellant has claimed compensation for actual loss of income at Rs. 1,50,000. This claim of the Appellant cannot   succeed.   The   grant   of   loss   of   future   income 10 compensates   for   any   further   period   of   time   where income was  lost. Actual loss  of income  can only be awarded   for   the   month   in   which   the   accident   took place. Therefore, one month’s salary being Rs. 8,500 be awarded for the month of October.  7.4. The Appellant has claimed reimbursement of Medical Expenses at Rs. 2,50,000.  The MACT in para 4 of the judgment recorded that the   Claimant   had   incurred   total   expenditure   of   Rs. 5,50,000 till the date of the judgment for medicines, hospital   charges,   doctor’s   fee,   operation   charges, travelling expenses and expense for special diet and granted Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation based on actual expenditure.  Since the Appellant has claimed expenses for special diet   and   attendance   charges   separately   before   this Court, we find it appropriate to award Rs. 2,50,000 as claimed   by   him   on   account   of   recurring   medical expenses. 11 7.5. The Appellant has claimed Rs. 90,000 for attendance and conveyance charges. The High Court had granted Rs.   70,000.   Keeping   in   consideration   the   injury suffered, the Appellant has permanently lost the source of   livelihood   as   his   movement   has   got   severely restricted with permanent impairment of the right side of   his   body.   As   he   is   permanently   disabled   for   life, towards   the   attendance   and   conveyance   charges   we grant to the Appellant Rs. 90,000 as claimed. 7.6. The Appellant made a claim for Rs.1,00,000 for special diet and nutrition. The High Court awarded Rs. 20,000 on this account. This amount seems to be meager to this   Court   given   inflationary   trends,   and   increased costs of living.  In   Puttamma  and  Ors. v. K.L.  Narayana  Reddy 4 and Anr.  this Court has stated: “...   we   hold   that   the   Second   Schedule   as   was enacted   in   1994   has   now   become   redundant, irrational   and   unworkable   due   to   changed scenario including the present cost of living and current   rate   of   inflation   and   increased   life expectancy.” 4 (2013) 15 SCC 45 12 In   view   of   the   said   principle,   compensation   for special diet and nutrition be enhanced to Rs. 80,000. 7.7. The compensation for loss of amenities in future life is enhanced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000. 7.8. The   Appellant   has   further   claimed   compensation  for pain  and  suffering   at Rs.  2,00,000.  The  High  Court awarded the Appellant Rs. 1,00,000 on this count. In case of permanent disability to the extent of 75%, and loss of livelihood of the sole bread winner of the family, it is not only the victim, but also his kith and kin who face the trauma. The Appellant has had steel rods and artificial   material   inserted   into   his   body   through surgery. His income earning capacity has been reduced by 100%.  In   such   circumstances,   we   find   it   appropriate   to award the Appellant Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for the life­long pain and suffering by him and his family. 8.   The   total   compensation   awarded   above   is   set   out hereinbelow: 13

The Appellant is entitled to payment of a total compensation of   Rs.   20,29,000   (Rupees   Twenty   Lakhs   Twenty   Nine Thousand Only) along with Simple Interest at 9% p.a. from the   date   of   the   application   made   before   the   MACT   on 11.10.2010   till   the   date   of   payment   from   both   the Respondents,   who   are   jointly   and   severally   liable   for   the same. The amount be paid to the Appellant within twelve weeks from the date of this judgment. 14 9. Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs. Pending applications if any are accordingly disposed of. …………………..………..J. (R. F. Nariman) …………………..……….J. (Indu Malhotra) New Delhi August 21, 2018 15