Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6365 OF 2022
Ramesh ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Karan Singh & Anr. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. The application for deleting the name of respondent No. 2
herein is allowed at the risk and responsibility of the
appellant herein.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 83
of 2002, by which, the High Court has partly allowed the
said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – injured –
claimant and has enhanced the amount of compensation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SNEHA
Date: 2022.09.16
15:18:42 IST
Reason:
to Rs. 14,82,000/ only, the original claimant has
preferred the present appeal.
1
3. In a vehicular accident which occurred on 02.01.1997, the
appellant – original claimant sustained multiple injuries.
There was an amputation of right upper limb below elbow
rd
at upper l/3 of forearm. During the prolonged
hospitalization, the injured – claimant was required to
undergo five operations. At the time of accident, the
appellant was getting USD 1000 as a salary in Merchant
Navy where he was employed at Belgium excluding free
food, accommodation, and free air ticket. The appellant
approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short
“Tribunal”) claiming Rs. 1,02,00,000/ for compensation
under different heads. The Tribunal awarded a total sum
of Rs. 6,68,000/ under different heads including the
expenses covering medicine, treatment, special diet, pain,
shock and suffering and future loss of income. While
awarding future economic loss, the Tribunal determined
and considered the income of the injured at Rs. 3,500/
per month. In the appeal preferred by the claimant, by the
impugned judgment and order the High Court has
enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.
6,68,000/ to Rs. 14,82,000/. While awarding future
2
economic loss, the High Court has though considered the
income of the injured at Rs. 36,000/ per month in
Merchant Navy, Belgium, but has actually considered the
loss of income at 50% of the same on the ground that in
Merchant Navy, usually the job is for six months in a year
and that as per the medical evidence, the injuries have
resulted in 70% disability qua right arm. The High Court
has awarded Rs. 25,000/ towards pain and suffering and
Rs. 10,000/ for special diet and Rs. 5,000/ for
transportation. Thus, the High Court has determined and
awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,82,000/ towards
compensation along with 7.5% per annum interest from
the date of filing of claim petition till realization.
3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order passed by the High Court in determining and
awarding only Rs. 14,82,000/ towards compensation, the
original claimant – injured has preferred the present
appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.
3
5. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
while awarding the future economic loss has considered
the loss of income at Rs. 18,000/ per month. However, it
is required to be noted that the appellant was serving as
Merchant Navy and his salary at the relevant time was
USD 1000. His right hand below elbow was amputated
resulting in 70% disability qua right arm. The High Court
has observed that the claimant can still earn something.
However, it is required to be noted that the claimant will
not be able to do any work in Merchant Navy. The High
Court also observed that in Merchant Navy, usually the job
is for six months in a year. The said observation is
absolutely without any basis. No evidence is led on behalf
of the respondents on the aforesaid. It cannot be said that
the claimant would do nothing for rest of six months. The
High Court has also not considered the future rise in
income. Under the circumstances and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have
awarded the future economic loss considering the loss of
income at least at Rs. 30,000/ per month. Therefore, the
total loss comes to Rs. 57,60,000/ (30000x12x16).
4
5.1 The High Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/ only towards
pain, shock, and suffering. However, it is required to be
noted that the right hand below elbow of the claimant was
amputated. During prolonged hospitalization, he was
operated five times. Looking to the serious injuries, the
claimant was required to be shifted to Medical College and
Hospital at Rohtak and thereafter to Jaipur Golden
Hospital, New Delhi, where he was remained admitted
from 03.01.1997 to 21.01.1997. Therefore, considering the
five operations, prolonged hospitalization, and suffering,
we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 25,000/
awarded by the High Court under the head of pain, shock,
and suffering can be said to be on a lower side. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, we
are of the opinion that the claimant shall be entitled to at
least Rs. 4,00,000/ towards pain, shock, and suffering.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court is to be modified accordingly.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is modified and it is
5
ordered that the appellant herein – injured – claimant shall
be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 62,35,000/ with 7.5%
interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till realization.
7. The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. The enhanced amount of compensation is to be
deposited by the respondents with the learned Tribunal
within a period of eight weeks from today and on such
deposit the same be paid to the original claimant –
appellant herein by account payee cheque. No costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]
6