Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2942 OF 2012
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.29045 OF 2011)
N. SURESH … APPELLANT
VERUS
YUSUF SHARIFF & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the nominal enhancement
granted by the High Court in the amount of compensation
awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Maddur
JUDGMENT
(Karnataka) in M.V.C.No.106/2003, the appellant has filed
this appeal.
4. The appellant, who has suffered 90% permanent
disability in his right leg which is paralysed and 50% to
60% disability of mouth and other parts of the body due to
th
an accident which occurred on 28 February, 2003, filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Page 1
2
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for award of
compensation of Rs.21,50,000/ with interest.
th
5. The case of the appellant is that on 28 February,
2003 at about 11.30 a.m., he along with his wifeSavitha
was travelling on a TVS Moped bearing Registration No.KA
01/H4236 on the left side of the road. He was waiting near
T. Ballekere cross to take turn to go to Koppa. At that
time, a lorry bearing Registration No.CNT/7206 driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed
came to the extreme left side of the road and dashed into
the vehicle of the appellant and caused the accident. Due
to the accident, the appellant fell down and sustained
grievous injuries. He was shifted to the hospital and in
course was given treatment at different hospitals. The
JUDGMENT
appellant contended that he was aged about 32 years on the
date of accident and was earning more than Rs.8,000/ per
month. After the accident, he has suffered permanent
disability and, therefore, he is not in a position to work
as before. During the course of treatment in different
hospitals, he had incurred medical expenses to the tune of
Rs.4,50,000/ so far. After the accident, he was
immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Koppa.
Page 2
3
Thereafter he was shifted to Mandya General Hospital and
then he was taken to J.S.S. Hospital, Mysore and from
there he was further shifted to Mallige Hospital,
Bangalore. Lastly, he was taken to St. John Medical
College Hospital, Bangalore where he was treated as indoor
patient and underwent an operation of the right leg
mandible, right hip, left leg, stomach and jaw(face). In
the said accident, the appellant lost all his teeth except
7 teeth in the upper jaw and 5 teeth in the lower jaw.
After the operation he has become permanently disabled and
will have to spend a huge amount towards medical expenses.
The Doctor has assessed the disability at 90% in his right
leg which has permanently paralysed; 50% to 60% disability
of his mouth and 20% to 25% disability of his whole body.
JUDGMENT
There was amputation below the knee of the right leg.
6. The owner of the lorry did not contest the case before
the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent, the New India Assurance
Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Assurance Company)
disputed the claim and denied the allegations made by the
appellant. However, it is admitted that the lorry was
nd
insured with the 2 respondent, the Assurance Co. The
Assurance Co. took a plea that the accident occurred due
Page 3
4
to the negligent driving of the TVS Moped by the appellant
himself, who without giving any signal and without
noticing the vehicle coming from the right side, dashed
into the lorry and caused the accident. The Assurance Co.
also denied the quantum of amount spent in the treatment
of the appellant.
7. On hearing the parties the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
“1. Whether the petitioner proves
accident was solely due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle as alleged ?
2. Whether petitioner proves that he
sustained injuries due to impact of the
vehicle as alleged?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get
compensation? If so, to what amount and
from whom?
JUDGMENT
4. To what order or relief the petitioner is
entitled?”
8. In order to prove his case, the appellant examined
eight witnesses including PW.2 N.K. Narayanashetty, Sales
Manager in Adiswara Marketing Company where the appellant
was working since two and a half years, PW.3 Dr. N.
Sundar, Parlour Surgeon of St. John Medical College and
Page 4
5
Hospital and PW.7Dr. Natashekara M., Assistant Professor
of Kempegowda Dental College and Hospital, PW.6 Y.M.
Thimmaiah, Postman in Haralekere Post Office and PW.8N.V.
Santosh, Manager of Adiswara Marketing Company. He also
produced 27 exhibits including medical bills, discharge
summary of the hospital, salary certificate/ vouchers,
vouchers of commission, etc.
9. The Tribunal on hearing both the parties and
appreciation of evidence on record answered the first
issue in affirmative in favour of the appellant and held
that the appellant sustained injuries due to the impact of
vehicle as alleged. The second issue relating to the
entitlement of compensation was also decided in
affirmative in favour of the appellant but while deciding
JUDGMENT
the issue Nos.3 and 4, the Tribunal awarded total
compensation of Rs.4,17,000/ with interest at the rate of
6% per annum against the following heads:
1. Towards pain and sufferings = Rs. 50,000/
2. Towards loss of future earnings = Rs.1,55,000/
3. Towards medical expenses and other
Incidental charges = Rs.2,00,000/
4. Towards loss of income during
treatment = Rs. 12,000/
Page 5
6
Total = Rs.4,17,000/
============
th
10. The High Court by impugned order dated 28 September, 2010
nominally enhanced the amount against different heads along
with 6% interest as shown hereunder:
1. Towards pain and sufferings = Rs.1,00,000/
2. Towards medical expenses = Rs.1,50,000/
3. Towards conveyance, nourishing food
and attendant charges = Rs. 40,000/
4. Towards loss of income during laidup
Period = Rs. 18,000/
5. Towards loss of amenities = Rs.1,00,000/
6. Towards loss of future income = Rs.2,88,000/
7. Towards future medical expenses = Rs. 30,000/
Total = Rs.7,26,000/
===========
JUDGMENT
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate the
income of the appellant by calculating it to Rs.3,000/
though there was evidence on record to show that the
earning of the appellant was much more than Rs.8,000/ per
month. The High Court has failed to consider the permanent
disability and loss of future income of the appellant who
Page 6
7
was working hard to earn the income of more than
Rs.8,000/ per month.
12. It was further contended that taking into
consideration the permanent disability of more than 90% of
the leg and 60% disability of mouth, the High Court ought
to have assessed permanent disability accordingly. Apart
from this, the Tribunal and the High Court have also
failed to grant appropriate amount towards medical
expenses and other incidental charges apart from
Rs.30,000/ towards future medical expenses as granted.
13. Inspite of the service of notice, nobody has appeared
on behalf of the respondents to dispute the claim.
14. We have considered the arguments as advanced on behalf
of the appellant and perused the record. The questions
JUDGMENT
which arise for consideration in this case are :
(i) What was the earning of the appellant prior
to the accident and the permanent disability
incurred during accident to decide the quantum of
loss of future earning and loss of income during
the treatment/laid up period and
(ii) What amount the appellant is entitled
towards medical expenses incurred, other
incidental charges and future medical expenses.
Page 7
8
15. The Tribunal has noticed and appreciated different
evidence on record relating to earning and disability to
decide the loss of future earning, the relevant portion of
which reads as follows:
“ (ii) Towards loss of future earning capacity :
Petitioner contended that prior to accident he was
hale and healthy aged about 32 years on the date of
accident. He was working as mail courier in Kowdle
Post Office (DDSMC) and getting Rs.2,494/ p.m.
since 1994. Apart from that work he was working in
Adiswara Market Company as Deputy Sales Officer and
getting commission of Rs.1,500/ to Rs.3,000/ p.m.
th
along with salary of Rs.2,000/ p.m. He got 4
medal in the State. Apart from that he is working
as agent in PGF Limited, Mandya getting Rs.2,000/
to 3,000/ p.m. From all he was earning Rs.8,000/
p.m. His wife, mother and children were depending
upon his income. So there is loss of future earning
capacity. In this connection he has been examined
as P.W.1 and deposed about the services given by
him. P.W.2 one N.K. Narayanashetty, who is Sales
Manager in Adiswara Marketing Company deposed that
Petitioner is working in their Company since 21/2
years and getting Rs.2,000/ p.m. apart from
commission of Rs.1,500/ to 3,000/ p.m. Now he is
not working there. P.W.5 Chikkathimmaiah is
Inspector in PGF Limited, Mandya deposed that
Petitioner was working as Assistant Agent and
getting Rs.2,000/ p.m. He has produced identity
card at Ex.P22. Commission vouchers were also
produced at Ex.P14. P.W.6 Thimmaiah, who is
postman in Haralekere Post Office deposed that the
Petitioner was working as Mail Courier since 10
years and getting income. P.W.8 Manager of
Adiswara Marketing deposed that Petitioner was
working in their company and getting Rs.2,000/
p.m. and also getting commission of Rs.4,000/ to
5,000/ p.m. He has issued certificates as per
Ex.P7. Now he is not working in the company, Ex.P
JUDGMENT
Page 8
9
his 15 salary vouchers. Some commission vouchers of
Adiswara Marketing Limited were produced. Ex.P13
Postal is Department Certificate stating that he
working was as mail courier, Ex.P11 is certificate
Post of Department stated that from March 2003 to
August 2003 they have not paid the salary. Ex.P12
salary is certificate of PGF Limited stated that he
paid was with Rs.2,000/ monthly income. Ex.P13
shows that he was working as mail courier since
1994. There is no specific details about his
income. He was getting average commission. Looking
to the nature of the works stated by the Petitioner
if is not possible to do all those works every day,
he might have done work here and there. He has not
stated from which time to which time he was working
his particular job and whether they are continuous.
Hence, considering all these aspects his income is
considered at Rs.2,000/ p.m. He is suffering from
permanent physical disability of 90% in his right
leg and 50% to 60% in his mouth, his face become
ugly and he could not open his mouth, he is
suffering from fracture of mandible and maxilla.
He inserted with plates and screws, his right leg
is fractured, he cannot chew and he became weak.
Doctor has stated he cannot work. P.W.3, Doctor
deposed about the disability in right leg at 90%,
not deposed what will be the disability comparing
to whole body. P.W.7 dentist deposed that he was
suffering from permanent physical disability of 50%
to 60% in his face and comparing to whole body it
come to 20% to 25%. Considering all these injuries
his working capacity is reduced. Hence, it is found
just and proper to consider disability remained
with the Petitioner at 40%. He stated that he is
aged about 32 to 33 years at the time of accident.
He has not produced any age proof documents.
Medical certificate shows his age is 32 years. If
there is so the proper multiplier would be 16. If
income is considered at Rs.2,000/ p.m. it comes to
Rs.24,000/ p.a. 40% of the same comes to
Rs.9,600/. If same is multiplied by 16 it comes to
Rs.1,53,600/. It is found proper to award
Rs.1,55,000/ under this head.”
JUDGMENT
Page 9
1
16. From the evidence as recorded, it is evident that
prior to the accident the appellant used to earn the
following amount:
1. Towards Salary from Adiswara Marketing
Company = Rs.2,000/ p.m.
(As deposed by PW8. Manager, Adiswara
Marketing Company, Cited at Ex.P15)
2. Commission from Adiswara Marketing
Company (Rs.4,000/ to Rs.5,000/)= Rs.4,500/p.m.
(as deposed by PW.8, Manager, Adiswara (average)
Marketing Ltd.)
3. Towads Salary as Assistant = Rs.2,000/p.m.
Agent from PGF Limited, Mandya
(as deposed by PW.5, Chikkathimmaiah;
Inspector, PGF Ltd. Mandya)
4. As mail courier of Kowdle Post Office= Rs.2,495/
p.m.
(as deposed by appellant and corroborated
by PW.6, Thimmaiah, Postman)
JUDGMENT
Total = Rs.10, 995/
===========
Therefore, it can safely be stated that the appellant
was earning minimum Rs.8,500/ per month prior to the
accident.
17. The PW.3, Doctor deposed that the right leg is 90%
disabled and is permanently paralysed. The leg is
Page 10
1
amputated. Apart from this, his face has been deformed and
is disabled to the extent of 50% to 60%, due to which he
is not in a position to open his mouth fully. Therefore,
it can safely be stated that the appellant is 90%
permanently disabled to earn any income. The Tribunal and
the High Court failed to appreciate the facts and fixed
the disability at a lower level of 40% or 50%.
18. Admitted, the appellant was about 32 years of age at
the time of the accident, therefore, the Tribunal was
right in applying the multiplier of 16 to determine the
compensation. Once the income is considered at Rs.8,500/
per month it comes to Rs.1,02,000/ per annum, 90% of the
same comes to Rs.91,800/. If the same is multiplied by 16
it comes to Rs.91,800/ x 16 = Rs.14,68,800/. Therefore,
JUDGMENT
it is proper to award Rs. 14,68,800/ towards “loss of
future earning”.
19. So far as loss of income during the treatment is
concerned, the Tribunal has noticed the nature of injuries
and treatment taken by the appellant to come to the
conclusion that the appellant might not have worked at
least for six months. Even if such minimum period for
treatment is accepted as six months, the appellant is
Page 11
1
entitled for a just and proper award of Rs.51,000/ under
the head of “loss of income during the treatment”.
20. So far as medical expenses and other incidental
charges are concerned, the Tribunal appreciated the
different evidence and observed as follows:
“iii) Towards medical expenses and other
incidental charges : Petitioner contended that
he has taken treatment in several hospitals.
Initially he was taken to Mandya General
Hospital. Later in private car he was taken to
JSS Hospital, Mysore. On the same day he was
taken to Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore. He
was operated on his right leg and discharged
for higher treatment. He was admitted in Boring
Hospital, Bangalore wherein he was paid
Rs.5,000/. From that hospital also he was
discharged. Later he was admitted in St. John
Hospital on 2.3.2003. He was operated on his
hand, right leg, left leg, stomach. He was
indoor patient for 2 months. Later he took
treatment in Kempegowda Dental Hospital for
mandible and he was indoor patient for 1 week.
All his teeth were removed. He lost all teeth
and left leg. He has become completely
disabled. P.W.7 Doctor Natarajshekar of
Kempegowda Hospital deposed that he treated his
dental problems stated that on 9.7.2003 to
15.7.2003 he was indoor patient. All teeth
were removed, decided to insert entire set. On
10.7.2003 he was operated and again on 4.9.2003
nd
he was operated for 2 time. In this connection
he has produced Ex.P5 wound certificate issued
by St.John Medical Hospital, Bangalore, Ex.P6
and P7 is medical bills and Transporting
charges. He has produced medical bills worth
Rs.1,85,628/ of rounded off to Rs.1,86,000/
transportation and charges worth of Rs.27,230.
Ex.P9 to 16 case sheet, patient record,
JUDGMENT
Page 12
1
discharge summary, Ex.P17 is the case sheet of
St.John Medical College Hospital, Bangalore for
having taken treatment from 2.3.2003 to
28.4.2003 and also taken treatment from
2.3.2003 to 28.4.2003 and also taken treatment
from 29.3.2003 to 20.4.2003. Others are ex
rays Ex.P25 is KIMS Hospital records. He
further produced Ex.P26 cash bills worth of
Rs.2,590/. On going through records Ex.P6 the
petitioner has taken into consideration double
of hospital bills, which ought to have been
reduced, which comes to Rs.1,85,000/ and not
4,83,000/ as calculated. The bills are
repeated as item No.8,18,19,34,36,60. The only
final bill worth of Rs.73,000/ is shown but
he has considered the interval bills also
including the final bills it comes to
Rs.1,85,628/. On going through all the medical
bills some of them are not supported with
prescriptions and not properly explained by the
petitioner. Having regard to all the
circumstances and treatment taken by him in
different hospitals he might have spent for
medical expenses. So it is better to consider
medical expenses at Rs.1,50,000/. On perusal
of Ex.P7 transportation charges receipts have
been produced, but person who provide vehicle
is not mentioned. However he might have spent
something for transportation. It is proper to
consider Rs.10,000/ for transportation. He
was in hospital and taken treatment, he might
have spent attendant expenses and special diet,
it is found just and proper to award
Rs.10,000/ for the same P.W.7 Doctor stated
that he has to undergo in future operation of
mandible by spending Rs.1,50,000/ for
insertion of implant since all the sets
removed. Xray shows fracture of cants of left
side. There is permanent disability in the
mouth. Considering all these aspects it is
found that he requires future medical expenses
of Rs.30,000/. Hence, Petitioner is entitled
JUDGMENT
Page 13
1
for compensation under this head is
Rs.2,00,000/.”
21. From the evidence on record the following amounts
towards different medical bills are undisputed:
(1)The amounts paid during the treatment
shows as interval bills and final bills
=Rs.1,86,000/
(2)Cash Bill (Ex.P26) =Rs. 2,590/
In this background, the High Court and the Tribunal
ought to have accepted the amount of Rs.1,86,000/ towards
medical bills, apart from transportation charges.
22. If the aforesaid amount is taken into consideration
towards the abovesaid heads, then as per High Court’s
calculation the breakup of amounts is as follows:
1. Towards pain and sufferings = Rs.1,00,000/
(as awarded by High Court)
JUDGMENT
2. Towards medical expenses = Rs.1,86,000/
(as determined above)
3. Towards conveyance, nourishing food
and attendant charges = Rs. 40,000/
(as awarded
by the
High Court)
4. Towards loss of income during laidup
period = Rs. 51,000/
(as determined
Above)
Page 14
1
5. Towards loss of amenities = Rs.1,00,000/
(as awarded
by the
High Court)
6. Towards loss of future income = Rs.14,68,800/
(as determined
Above)
7. Towards future medical expenses= Rs. 30,000/
(as awarded
by the
High Court)
Total =Rs.19,75,800/
===========
23. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC
th
No.106/2003 dated 9 September, 2005 and the High Court
th
in MFA No.11865/2005 dated 28 September, 2010 stands
modified, awarding compensation of Rs.19,75,800/ with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the
JUDGMENT
nd
petition till realisation. The 2 respondentThe New
India Assurance Co.Ltd. is directed to pay immediately to
the appellant total amount of Rs.19,75,800/ with 6%
interest, after deducting the amount already paid by them.
……………………………………………….J.
( G.S. SINGHVI )
Page 15
1
……………………………………………….J.
( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 19, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Page 16