Full Judgment Text
C.A. No. 5757 of 2005
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5757 OF 2005
B.P. CHOKHANI ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
APSRTC, REP BY ITS GM. HYDERABAD ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
This appeal arises from a motor accident claim
filed by the appellant who met with an accident on
November 22, 1992. In the accident, the appellant
suffered major injuries as a result of which he was
hospitalised for long periods on a number of occasions
spread over about four years and in the end suffered
from 90 per cent disability on the right lower limb,
60per cent permanent disability on the left lower limb
and disability in left wrist to the extent of 10 per
cent.
C.A. No. 5757 of 2005
2
th
He filed his claim application on 07 March,
1993, in which he claimed compensation for medical
expenses in the sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- and compensation
for pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity in
the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 8,00,000/-
respectively apart from compensation under other
different heads. It may be noticed that even after the
filing of the claim petition on March 7, 1993, the
appellant underwent indoor medical treatment for
different periods on a number of occasions which has
inter alia increased his medical expenses.
During the pendency of the proceedings before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, he filed an
interlocutory application claiming that his total
medical expenses had gone up to Rs.11,00,000/- and
under the loss of income he was entitled to a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/-. In the course of the proceedings
before the Tribunal, in his deposition, he has stated
that the total medical expenses incurred by him was to
the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, even though he was able to
file documentary evidence in regard to the medical
expenses only for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The
th
Tribunal by its Award dated 30 August, 1997 made in
MBOP No. 536 of 1993 held and found that the accident
C.A. No. 5757 of 2005
3
took place partly due to the negligence of the
appellant and it was, therefore, a contributory
negligence in which the appellant's liability was
assessed at 40 per cent. The Tribunal found and held
that the appellant was entitled to a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of business; a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- for medical expenses; another sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards partial permanent disability. All
these sums add up to Rs. 8,00,000/- and the accident
being contributory in nature, the appellant was held
entitled to 60 per cent of the aforesaid sum, being Rs
4,80,000/-. The appellant went in appeal before the
High Court but the appeal was dismissed by a brief
order in which the High Court does not seem to have
properly adverted to the appellant's grievances.
On hearing Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Praveen
Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), we
are of the view that the amount of compensation
determined by the Tribunal towards his medical expenses
clearly warrants an interference by us. It has to be
noted that the end of paragraph 12 of the Award (at
C.A. No. 5757 of 2005
4
page 48 of the paper book), the Tribunal observed as
follows:
“Therefore, however, the petitioner has
claimed that he has incurred
Rs.12,00,000/- towards medical expenses
and has produced bills only for
Rs.9,00,000/- as is admitted by him in
his evidence. I am of the view that
all these expenses incurred by him are
only absolutely necessary and incurred
in view of the nature of injuries
sustained in the accident.”
One paragraph thereafter in paragraph 14, the Tribunal
said as under:
“In the absence of medical
evidence to show that the petitioner
required all those amounts said to have
been incurred by him and paid by him tot
he injuries, I am of the view that it is
just and reasonable if a total sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- is given for medical
expenses, stay in the hospitals..”
We are plainly at loss to reconcile the two
passages in the Tribunal's Award having held that the
appellant had to spend Rs. 9,00,000/- for his medical
expenses which was absolutely necessary, we are unable
to see how could the Tribunal say that in the absence
C.A. No. 5757 of 2005
5
of medical evidence, it could not be said that the
expenses incurred by him were reasonable and proper. We
are, therefore, clearly of the view that the Tribunal
was in error in reducing the amount of compensation for
the medical expenses from Rs.9,00,000/- to a wholly
unsubstantiated figure of Rs.5,00,000/-, We,
therefore, find and hold that on the Tribunal's own
finding the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs.
9,00,000/- towards his medical expenses added to the
other amounts of compensation the sum of Rs.9,00,000/-
would add up to Rs. 12,00,000/-, 60 per cent of which
would be Rs. 7,20,000/-. We also find and hold that
the appellant is entitled to the aforesaid sum of
Rs.7,20,000/- by way of compensation, the additional
amount with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from
the date of the Tribunal's Award till the date of
payment should be paid to the appellant within a period
of two months from today.
In the result, the appeal is allowed to the
extent indicated above but in the facts of the case,
there will be no order as to costs.
........................J
[AFTAB ALAM]
C.A. No. 5757 of 2005
6
........................J
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010.