LALAN D. @ LAL vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

[Non­Reportable] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO.2855 OF 2020       (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2131 of 2018) Lalan D. @ Lal & Anr.                                          ..…Appellant(s) Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.                …Respondent(s)           J U D G M E N T ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. The appellants before us are a victim of a road accident and his wife.  The first appellant is the victim. The accident occurred st on 31   December 2003 while the victim was riding his bicycle along   the   side   of   Alappuzha­Kolam   highway.   At   the   time   of institution   of   the   claim   petition   before   the   Motor   Accidents Claims   Tribunal,   Alappuzha   under   Section   166   of   the   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), out of which this appeal arises, the Signature Not Verified first appellant was unconscious and was represented by his wife Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2020.09.17 18:54:21 IST Reason: as   the   legal   guardian   and   next   friend.     She   was   also   a   co­ Page 1 of 16 applicant before the Tribunal. It was claimed before the forum of first instance that the victim was skilled labourer in a building th construction project. His date of birth is 20  May 1969.  Before the Tribunal, his age at the time of accident was found to be above 34 years. He suffered, inter­alia, head injury causing brain concussion, brain stems injury, diffuse axonial injury on left side. He had to undergo extensive treatment in two hospitals, being Medical College Hospital, Vandanam, Alappuzha and thereafter at Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. He had to spend about six weeks   in   these   two   hospitals.   Thereafter   also   his   treatment continued.  The claim was not contested by the first respondent – the owner of the vehicle and was decided ex­parte against him. Before us also, it was only the insurance company who contested the appeal. The first respondent was deleted from the array of the th parties by an order of this Court passed on 9  April, 2019.   The Tribunal   found   involvement   of   the   vehicle   registered   as   KL­ 2/No.9779.     Rash and negligent driving by the driver of that vehicle   was   also   proved.   As   regards   condition   of   the   first appellant, the Tribunal, in its award, found that the victim had “right aided Hemiparalesis and there is weakness on the other side also. He is completely bed ridden and he could not speak Page 2 of 16 properly and he has some mental problem also. Tube was fitted for the passage of urine……”. The Tribunal in its award made on th 20   January,   2009   assessed   permanent   disability   of   the appellant to be 50%.  2. Compensation was awarded by the Tribunal under following heads, applying the multiplier of 17: Compensation for loss of earning Rs.20,000/­ Cost of medicine and treatment charges Rs.68,000/­ Transportation charges Rs. 6,000/­ Bystander expenses Rs. 6,000/­ Extra nourishment Rs. 1,500/­ Damage to clothing Rs.  500/­ Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.30,000/­ Compensation for permanent disability And loss of earning power Rs.2,55,500/­ Compensation for loss of amenities Rs.10,000/­ Compensation for future treatment Rs. 2,500/­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­          Total       Rs.4,00,000/­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 3. The victim and his wife appealed to the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam seeking enhancement of compensation.  The High Court  considered   certain   additional   documents.   The   appellant established   before   the   High   Court   the   need   to   continue   his Page 3 of 16 treatment subsequent to the award of the Tribunal. It was opined th in the judgment of the High Court delivered on 16  March, 2017, that the condition of the appellant was such that it was more than sufficient to arrive at a finding that he was virtually lying as vegetable. The victim had permanent locomotor disability of right hemiplegia   sequelae   of   head   injury   which   was   not   likely   to improve. The High Court found that the victim needed a full­time caregiver as he was not in a position to move around on free will. The High Court assessed the degree of disability to be reckoned as 100% for working out proper compensation and applied the multiplier of 16 considering his age.  We shall reproduce the High Court’s   decision   on   quantum   of   compensation   in   the   next paragraph of this judgment.  4. The   Medical   Board   at   the   Medical   College   Hospital, Alappuzha had certified the victim’s permanent disability to be 50%,   which   was   the   basis   for   assessment   of   degree   of   his disability by the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s award was made, as we have already indicated, in the year 2009.   But considering the position of the victim, while hearing the appeal in the year 2017, the High Court attributed the percentage of his disability to be Page 4 of 16 100%.  The High Court enhanced his notional monthly income to Rs.3500/­   per   month.   In   the   judgment   under   appeal,   it   was observed and held: “It is true that the accident was in the year 2003, but it was on the last day of the year and by the dawn of the next day, it was to begin   with   the   year   2004.   Evidently,   the injured was maintaining a family of his own, consisting   of   his   wife,   who   is   the   second appellant/second   claimant.   By   virtue   of   the present state of affairs, it can be reasonably presumed that the wife will not be in a position to move about for getting some job and she has to   be   near   her   husband   throughout,   to   give constant care and attention, even for meeting the   calls   of   nature,   for   administration   of medicines   and   for   food   intake.   In   the   said circumstance,   we   find   that   the   notional monthly income fixed by the Tribunal requires some   modification.   We   enhance   the   same  to Rs.3500/­ per month. The proper multiplier, as rightly pointed out by the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the Insurer is ‘16’; in view of the date of birth of the injured being 25.9.1969. On   re­working   the   compensation   towards disability, it comes to Rs.6,72,000/­ (3500 x 12 x 16 x 100/100). After giving credit to the sum of Rs.2,55,000/­ awarded by the Tribunal, the balance comes to Rs.4,17,000/­. Since we have awarded compensation for disability, reckoning it as 100%, the compensation of loss of earning awarded   by   the   Tribunal   becomes   irrelevant and insignificant and hence the said amount of Rs.20000/­is   deleted.   Hence   the   balance payable comes to Rs.3,97,000/­. The compensation under the heads ‘pain and suffering’ and towards ‘loss of amenities and Page 5 of 16 enjoyment   in   life’   also   require   some modification.   Taking   into   the   totality   of   the facts and circumstances, we award a further sum of Rs.10,000/­ under the head ‘pain and suffering’ and a sum of Rs.40,000/­ towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Thus, the   total   balance   compensation   comes   to Rs.4,47,000/­ (Rupees four lakhs forty seven thousand only), which shall be satisfied with interest   at   the   rate   of   9%   from   the   date   of petition till realisation, within ‘one month’ from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.” 5. The   appellants   have   asked   for   further   enhancement   of compensation before us. Grievance of the appellants is that the victim has been under­compensated, having regard to the degree of injury suffered by him. He has specifically raised the plea for award   of   compensation   under   the   head   of   loss   of   future prospects. It is also his case that the High Court erred in law in applying the multiplier of 16.  It has been urged on behalf of the appellants   that   the   multiplier   17   as   per   the   award   of   the Tribunal, should have been retained.  6. On   behalf   of   the   insurance   company,   prayer   of   the appellants for enhancement of compensation has been opposed. It has been argued that there was contributory negligence on the part of the first appellant in that he was under the influence of Page 6 of 16 liquor at the time of accident. On that count, they want reduction of 50% of the compensation from the judgment and order under appeal. Quantification of his monthly income as Rs.3,500/­ has also been questioned by the insurance company in their counter­ affidavit. The case of   Sri Ramachandrappa vs. The Manager,  [(2011) 13 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. SCC 236] has been referred to in this regard. On the question as to what would constitute just compensation, the cases of  Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.  [(2010) 10   SCC   254]   and   National   Insurance   Company   Ltd.   vs. [(2011) 13 SCC 306] have been cited on their Kusuma and Anr.  behalf.   It has also been argued that as he was a construction worker,   he   must   have   had   received   compensation   under   the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1966 as   also   Workmen   Compensation   Act,   1923.   The   insurance company’s case is that personal expenses of the victim ought to have been taken to be one­fourth of the loss of income assessed. The plea for attendant charges has been resisted on the ground that no service by any bystander had been proved and no bill for expenses for surgery or hospitalisation during the last 17 years Page 7 of 16 had been produced.  The insurance company, however, has not come up in appeal questioning the High Court’s finding on the heads of compensation and quantum of compensation awarded under   these   heads.     These   submissions   of   the   insurance company we cannot entertain at this stage while dealing with the victim’s   appeal   for   enhancement   of   compensation.   Otherwise also, we do not think these submissions have any legal basis in the context of the present appeal. The forum of first instance or the High Court did not return any finding on the first appellant being   under   influence   of   alcohol.   In   the   victim’s   appeal,   we cannot permit the insurance company to raise this plea at this stage. Moreover, submission that the appellant must have drawn compensation under different welfare statutes is inferential. The insurance company has not disclosed any evidence to sustain their stand on this count.  7. The High Court has assessed monthly income of the victim to   be   Rs.3500/­.   This   was   enhanced   from   the   Tribunal’s quantification   of   Rs.2,500/­   per   month.     We   do   not   want   to disturb the  finding of  the  High Court on this  point.    This  is essentially   a   finding   on   question   of   fact.   The   respondent Page 8 of 16 insurance company has cited the case of  Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avatar Tomar & Ors.  [(2012) 2 SCC 267] to contend that in the context   of   loss   of   future   earning,   physical   disability   resulting from an accident ought to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. The approach of the Tribunal as also the High Court in the case of the victim has been in that line only. The respondents also sought to rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of  Priya Vasant Kalgutkar vs. Murad Shaikh & Ors.  [(2009) 15 SCC 54]. This case, however, relates to computation of compensation for injuries   suffered   by   a   minor.     Ratio   of   this   decision   has   no application in the facts of this case. We are, however, also of the opinion that the High Court went wrong in not awarding any sum under   the   head   of   loss   of   future   prospects.   In   the   case   of National Insurance Company  Ltd.  vs.  Pranay  Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], a Constitution Bench has opined that the standardisation of just compensation is to include addition of future   prospects   to   the   income   of   the   victim   at   the   time   of occurrence of the accident. This was a case where the victim had succumbed to the injuries. The present appeal relates to a victim, Page 9 of 16 who   has   survived   the   accident   but   his   disability   has   been assessed to be 100% by the High Court. We confirm this finding of the High Court.   In the case of   Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.   [(2019) 7 SCC 217], a Bench comprising of two Judges of this Court found 50% of the income of the victim was to be assessed as loss of future prospects. Earlier, this Court broadly took the same view in the case of [(2014) 3 SCC 210].  The Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways  course mandated by this Court in the case of  Parminder Singh (supra) is addition to the monthly income of the victim, 50% thereof as loss of future prospects to arrive at compensation for loss of income for the purpose of application of the multiplier. This method of  computation is based on sound  logic and  we choose to apply the same methodology in this appeal also. The loss of earning capacity of the first appellant is 100%.  On this basis, his  loss of  future  earning would  have  to  be  calculated treating income of the victim to be Rs.3,500/­ per month, to which loss of future prospects at the rate of 40% thereof is to be added, which would make it Rs.4900/­ per month. This is the computation method directed by the Constitution Bench in the Page 10 of 16 case of  Pranay Sethi  (supra) so far as self­employed persons are concerned. We direct addition of 40% as there is no material before us to prove that the victim had a permanent job. Evidence before   the   Tribunal   was   that   he   was   a   skilled   labourer   in   a building construction project. There was no evidence that he was on their permanent roll. The multiplier to be applicable in this case would be 16 following the specification contained in the case of    Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121].  Accordingly, his loss of future earning would have   to   be   calculated   first   by   multiplying   Rs.4,900/­   by   12, which   would   come   to   Rs.58,800/­   This   would   be   his   annual income.   Once   multiplier   of   16   is   applied,   his   loss   of   future earning would come to Rs.9,40,800/­, considering that degree of his disability is 100%.  As the appellant has survived though at present in almost “coma stage” as observed by the High Court, we reject the insurance company’s plea for making any deduction towards personal living expenses.  8. We   also   find   that   there   was   no   compensation   awarded towards   expenses   for   a   caregiver   barring   a   paltry   sum   of Rs.6,000/­ as bystander expenses. The defence of the insurance Page 11 of 16 company for keeping the said sum at that negligible level is that no evidence had been led as regards expenses incurred towards any medical attendant.   But going by the work the victim was doing and his physical state of being resulting from his injuries, conclusion has to be inevitable that he required and still requires caregiver round­the­clock and round the year to remain barely functional.  Judging by the stratum of the society he comes from, it would be irrational to expect that he would have been in a position to directly engage a caregiver after his accident. It would not be an  unreasonable  assumption that  his family  members must have had to fit into that role. They could perform the role of caregiver   only   by   diverting   their   own   time   from   any   form   of gainful employment which could have generated some income. We   proceed   on   the   same   assumption   on   his   requirement   of continued medical treatment post­discharge from the hospital. There is observation in the judgment of the High Court that he was undergoing treatment in “Aarogya Keralam” Palliative Caring Scheme. We are of the opinion that Rs.7,00,000/­ ought to be awarded as lumpsum, composite amount for medical attendant charges and future medical treatment. In the case of   Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors.  [(2020) 4 SCC 413] for attendant charges, Page 12 of 16 a Bench of two­Judges of this Court has held that the multiplier methodology ought to be applied. On the other hand, in the case of   (supra)   a   lumpsum   amount   has   been Parminder   Singh   awarded.  In the facts of the given case, we are of the opinion that award of lumpsum would be the proper course considering the fact that the first appellant was a daily labourer. In traumatic times   after   his   accident,   his   family   was   unlikely   to   maintain detailed records of the expenses incurred.   9. Under   the   head   pain   and   suffering   the   High   Court   has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/­. The appellants want this sum to be raised to Rs.6,00,000/­ relying on a judgment of this Court in the   case   of   Mallikaarjun   Vs.   Divisional   Manager,   National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.   [(2014) 14 SCC 396]. In the case of   Kajal   (supra), where the victim was a young girl of 12 years having suffered 100% disability, the amount awarded was Rs.15,00,000/­ under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities.  But this judgment qualified such award with a caveat that the sum was awarded in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of   Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. [(2011) 1 SCC 343] it has been observed that when compensation Page 13 of 16 is awarded by treating loss of future earning capacity to be 100% or   even   anything   more   than   50%   the   need   to   award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear. As a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under those heads. It   is   a   fact   that   in   the   cases   of   Kajal   (supra)   and Mallikaarjun  (supra), the victims were minor children.  Their loss of income and permanent disability compensation were computed treating their income to be Rs.15,000/­ per annum. So far as the present appeal is concerned, the High Court has assessed the annual income to be Rs.42,000/­ (Rs.3500x12). But this very fact cannot altogether deprive the victim from compensation under the   head   pain   and   suffering.   The   High   Court   had   awarded Rs.10,000/­only   under   this   head.   We   assess   the   same   to   be Rs.3,00,000/­.  Considering the observations made in the case of (supra), to which we have already referred, we reduce Raj Kumar  the   sum   awarded   by   the   High   Court   under   the   head   loss   of amenities from Rs.40,000/­ to Rs.10,000/­. 10. We   accordingly   modify   the   award   as   made   by   the   High Court   and   direct   the   respondent­insurance   company   to   make Page 14 of 16 payment as compensation under the following heads (which also includes   the   heads   under   which   sums   were   awarded   by   the Tribunal and the High Court) :­

11. The   aforesaid   sum   will  carry   interest  @   9%  per   annum. Upon   adjusting   the   sum   already   paid,   the   amount   we   have awarded   shall   be   released   to   the   appellants.   Interest   on   the differential sum shall be computed from the date of filing of the application under Section 166 of the Act.  The said amount shall be  invested   in   an   interest  bearing   fixed   deposit   account   of  a Nationalised Bank for a period of one year in the name of the first appellant within eight weeks. The appellants shall be entitled to withdraw the interest therefrom on a regular basis during the Page 15 of 16 tenure of the fixed deposit.  Thereafter, the entire sum shall be paid over to the appellants. 12. The   appeal   is   disposed   of   in   the   above   terms.     Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ……………………………… .J .    (Sanjay Kishan Kaul) ………………………………. J .     (Ajay Rastogi) ………………………………. . J     (Aniruddha Bose) New Delhi, th Dated:  17  September, 2020 . Page 16 of 16