BENSON GEORGE vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1540 OF 2022 Sri. Benson George        .. Appellant(s) Versus Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.& Anr.   ..Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T M. R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment   and   order   dated   28.09.2020   passed   by   the   High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in M.F.A. No.3183 of 2018 Signature Not Verified (MV), the original claimant has preferred the present appeal Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.02.25 16:25:53 IST Reason: with the prayer to enhance the amount of compensation. 1 2. In a vehicular accident which occurred on 01.01.2013 the claimant sustained grievous brain injuries.  He underwent brain surgery.  Though he was discharged from the Hospital, he remained in coma even till the claim petition was filed.  At the   relevant   time   the   claimant   was   working   as   a   Process Supervisor in Deutsche Bank and earning Rs.4,59,425/­ per annum.   That at the time of accident he was aged 29 years. That the claimant through his next friend i.e. his mother filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. That   the   Learned   Tribunal   awarded   Rs.94,37,300/­   on   the different heads as under:

2

The learned Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.   2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal awarding a total sum of Rs.94,37,300/­ towards  the  compensation with  9% interest both, the Insurance Company as well as the original claimant preferred appeals before the High Court.   By the impugned common   judgment   and   order,   the   High   Court   has   party allowed   the   appeal   preferred   by   the   claimant   and   has enhanced the amount of compensation from 94,37,300/­ to Rs.1,24,94,333/­ under different heads as under:

3

The High Court has however, reduced the interest from 9% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal to the interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in not awarding full claim as prayed for, the original claimant has preferred the present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the   case   the   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   in awarding   Rs.2,00,000/­   only   under   the   head   pain   and suffering and Rs.1,00,000/­ only under the head of loss of future amenities and happiness. 4 3.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant that in the accident the claimant sustained grievous brain injuries.   He was hospitalized from 01.01.2013   to   15.03.2013   in  St.   John’s   Hospital   and   from 16.03.2013 to 03.05.2013 in Brain & Spine Centre.   He has undergone three major brain operations.  It is submitted that thereafter all throughout he is in coma and is bedridden.  It is submitted therefore that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has erred in awarding Rs.2,00,000/­ only under the head pain and suffering.  Therefore, it is prayed to enhance the amount of compensation under the head pain and   suffering   suitably,   considering   the   period   of hospitalization, the grievous brain injuries sustained by the claimant and that he underwent multiple operations.  3.2 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the claimant that in the vehicular accident the claimant has suffered 100% disability and is completely bedridden.   It is submitted   that   with   this   disability   he   will   have   to   live   a 5 miserable life till his death.   He will not be in a position to enjoy life and therefore the High Court has committed a grave error in awarding Rs.1,00,000/­ only towards loss of amenities and   happiness.     It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has committed a grave error in reducing the amount of interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the present appeal and to enhance the amount of compensation accordingly. 4. Present   appeal   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Ms.   Prerna Mehta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 4.1 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of  Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. ,   (2011) 1 SCC 343 , it is submitted that as held by this Court, when compensation   is awarded  by  treating  the   loss  of   future  earning  capacity as 100% the need to award compensation separately under the 6 head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss   of   expectation   of   life,   as   otherwise   there   may   be   a duplication in the award of compensation. 

circumstances of the case no error has been committed by the High   Court   in   awarding   Rs.1,00,000/­   towards   loss   of amenities and happiness.

behalf of the Insurance Company that decision of this Court in

(2020) 9 SCC 805. 7

Company that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High   Court   has   not   committed   any   error   in   reducing   the interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum.

length.

vehicular   accident   the   claimant   sustained   grievous   brain injuries.   That he was hospitalized for a number of months. That   he   undergone   MRI,   CT   scans   and   X­rays.     That   he sustained   right   temporal   SDH,   multiple   hemorrhagic contusions   on   temporal  lobe,   left  parieto­occipital  lobe,  left parietal   lobe   and   bilateral   frontal   lobe,   hemorrhagic contusions   left   thalamic   region   s/o   grade   II   diffuse   axonal injury, moderate SAH in right sylvian cistern, moderate diffuse cerebral edema, multiple comminuted and variably depressed fracture   in   left   squamous   temporal   and   left   parietal   bone, 8 bilateral   occipital   bone   fracture,   right   sub­occipital   SDH. Finally   diagnosed   that   traumatic   brain   injury   sequelae­s/p frontotemporoparietal hemicraniectomy and right lower limb deep vein thrombosis.  That   the   claimant   underwent   multiple   surgeries.   Left fronto­ temporoparietal decompressive hemicraniectomy with lax   duroplasty   done   on   02.01.2013.   He   underwent Percutaneous   Endoscopic   Gastrotomy   under   GA.   Since   the petitioner sustained very severe injuries to the Brain, he was shifted to the Brain & Spine Centre, Chemmanakary, Kerala, where he was admitted from 16.03.2013 to 03.05.2013. He underwent right side VP shunting (Chabra medium pressure regular) on 25.03.2013 under GA.  That the claimant is still in coma and totally bedridden.    7. Considering   the   prolonged   hospitalization   and   medical treatment and that the claimant underwent multiple surgeries, we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the   High   Court   has   erred   in awarding   Rs.2,00,000/­   only   under   the   head   pain   and 9 suffering.    The  pain,  suffering  and  trauma  suffered  by the claimant   cannot   be   compensated   in   terms   of   the   money. However,   still   it   will   be   a   solace   to   award   suitable compensation under different heads including the pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness of life.    7.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case due to the prolonged   hospitalization   and   the   multiple   brain injuries/injuries sustained by the claimant and that he is still in coma and is bedridden, we are of the opinion that if the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs), it can be said to be a reasonable amount under the head pain, shock and suffering. 7.2 Similarly, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ awarded by the High Court under the head loss of amenities and happiness can also be said to be on lower side.  As observed hereinabove no   amount   can   compensate   the   loss   of   amenities   and 10 happiness more particularly a person who is in coma since number of years and is bedridden for the entire life.   In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the amount of compensation under the head loss   of   amenities   and   happiness   is   enhanced   to Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from that of Rs.1,00,000/­ as   awarded   by   the   High   Court,   it   can   be   said   to   be   a reasonable   amount   under   the   head   loss   of   amenities   and happiness. 8. Now with regard to reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in the case of   Raj Kumar   (supra) and   Lalan D.

behalf of the Insurance Company is concerned, we are of the opinion that the amount of compensation to be awarded under the   heads,   pain   and   suffering   and   loss   of   amenities   and happiness,   there   cannot   be   straight   jacket   formula.     It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it varies from  person to  person who has  suffered due to the 11 accident.   So far as awarding compensation on the head of pain, shock and suffering is concerned, multiple factors are required to be considered namely, prolonged hospitalization; the grievous injuries sustained; the operations underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering. 8.1 Similarly, loss of amenities and happiness suffered by the claimant and his family members also depend upon various factors, including the position of the claimant post­accident and whether, he is in a position to enjoy life and/or happiness which he was enjoying prior to the accident.  To what extent the claimant has lost the amenities in life and the happiness will depend on the facts of each case.   Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the claimant is in coma even after a period of eight long years and that he will have to be permanently bedridden during   his   entire   life,   as   observed   above   the   amount   of compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities and happiness of Rs.1,00,000/­ only is unreasonable and meagre. 12 8.2 Now so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the amount of interest from 9% to 6%   per   annum   is   concerned,   in   the   peculiar   facts   and circumstances  of  the   case,  the  same is  not required  to be interfered   with   by   this   Court   in   exercise   of   powers   under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal is allowed in part.   The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of  Rs.1,41,94,333/­  with interest at the rate of 6% per   annum   from   the   date   of   filing   the   claim   petition   till realization.   The enhanced amount of compensation shall be deposited by the respondent – Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, it shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.     On   such   deposit,   the   learned   Tribunal   is   hereby 13 directed   to   ensure   that   the   amount   of   compensation   is invested   in   long   term   interest   bearing   deposits   in   different Nationalized   Banks   or   Post   Office   so   that   the   amount   of compensation can be used for the claimant and the same is not flittered away.   Present   appeal   is   accordingly   partly   allowed   to   the aforesaid extent.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ………………………………….J.         [M.R. SHAH] NEW DELHI;     ….…………………………….J. FEBRUARY 25, 2022.      [B.V. NAGARATHNA] 14