In other words, the appellant (claimant) is now entitled to claim a total sum of Rs.8,43,000/­ from the respondents jointly and severally by way of compensation for the injuries sustained, partial and permanent disability occurred, medical expenses incurred and loss occasioned due to injuries sustained by him in the accident.

          REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4398 OF 2016
Anil Kumar         ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Branch Manager, National
Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.      …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the
final judgment and order dated 19.03.2015 passed by
the High Court of Karnataka Bench at Dharwad in
Misc. First Appeal No. 24385 of 2011(MV) whereby the
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the claimant
(appellant   herein)   and   affirmed   the   judgment   and
award   dated   12.04.2011   passed   by   the   Member,
MACT­II, Bellary in M.V.C. No.711 of 2010.
1
2. Few   relevant   facts   need   to   be   mentioned
hereinbelow to appreciate the question involved in the
appeal.
3. The appellant was working as a cleaner in a lorry
bearing   Regn.   No.AP­21/V­4682   belonging   to
respondent No.2 herein.  At the relevant time, it was
insured   with   respondent   No.1.     On   05.12.2004,   at
about   1.00   p.m.   near   VGM   Factory,   Belgal   Road,
Bellary, when the appellant was standing in front of
the abovementioned lorry for the purpose of loading
iron   ore,   the   driver   of   the   lorry   moved   the   vehicle
without   giving   any   signal   or   horn   and   dashed   it
against   him.     As   a   result   of   which,   the   appellant
sustained facture of both pelvic bones with rapture of
urethra   and   abdomen   injuries   and   other   grievous
injuries all over his body.   The appellant was then
taken   to   VIMS   Hospital,   Bellary   for   the   medical
treatment.   The   appellant   claimed   to   have   spent   a
substantial sum towards his medical treatment.  Due
2
to   the   aforementioned   injuries   sustained   by   the
appellant, he has become permanently disabled to do
the work which he was doing before the accident. At
the time of accident, the appellant was 25 years of age
and earning Rs.4000/­ per month. 
4. The   appellant   filed   a   claim   petition   bearing
M.V.C. No.711 of 2010 before the MACT­II at Bellary
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
claimed compensation from the respondents.   It was
contested   by   the   respondents.     By   award   dated
12.04.2011, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant’s
claim petition.  It was held that the monthly income of
the   appellant­claimant   was   Rs.4000/­,   that   the
accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver
of   offending   vehicle,   that   the   appellant   sustained
partial but permanent disability in the whole body to
the extent of 25% and that the age of the appellant
was 25 years on the date of accident.   The Tribunal
then   applied   the   multiplier   of   18   and   accordingly
3
awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/­ towards loss of future
income,   Rs.75,000/­   towards   pain   and   sufferings,
Rs.25,000/­   towards   medical   expenses,   Rs.15,000/­
towards   future   medical   expenses   and   Rs.12,000/­
towards loss of income during laid up period.  So far
as the liability was concerned, the Tribunal held that
the   policy   was   a   package   policy   equivalent   to
comprehensive policy, which covers the risk of cleaner
also.
5. The   Tribunal   accordingly   awarded   a   total
compensation of Rs.3,43,000/­ with interest payable
at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till
payment against the respondents jointly and severally.
6.     Being   aggrieved   by   the   award   passed   by   the
Tribunal,   the   appellant­Claimant   filed   M.F.A.
No.24385   of   2011(MV)   for   enhancement   of   the
compensation before the High Court. The Insurance
Company (respondent No.1 herein) also felt aggrieved
and filed M.F.A. No.23729 of 2011 (MV) before the
4
High Court for setting aside the award passed by the
Tribunal.
7.     The   High   Court,   by   order   dated   19.03.2015,
dismissed both the appeals.
8.  Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellantclaimant
has filed this appeal by way of special leave
in   this   Court.     So   far   as   the   Insurance   Companyrespondent
No.1 herein is concerned, they have not
filed any appeal against the impugned order.
9. The   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in this appeal, is whether any case is
made out on facts/evidence for further enhancement
of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
appellant (claimant).
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and   on   perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case,   we   are
inclined to allow the appeal in part and accordingly
enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
the extent indicated infra.
5
11. In our considered opinion, the High Court erred
in   dismissing   the   claimant’s   appeal   and   thus
committed   an   error   in   not   further   enhancing   the
compensation. In other words, the appellant was able
to make out a case for further enhancement in the
quantum  of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
and, therefore, he is entitled for enhancement in the
award   of   compensation   on   the   grounds   mentioned
below.
12. First,   the   appellant   (claimant)   was   a   young
unmarried boy of 25 years at the time of accident and
did not suffer with any kind of ailment; Second, the
appellant had sustained fracture of both pelvic bones
with   rapture   of   urethra   and   abdomen   injuries   for
which   he   underwent   four   operations   and   suffered
partial   but   permanent   disability   in   his   body   which
reduced   his   movement   capacity   to   a   larger   extent;
Third,   the   appellant   due   to   partial   but   permanent
disability   also   lost   his   job;     Fourth,   he   spent   a
6
substantial sum for his medical treatment; and lastly,
since the appellant is not still able to move freely due
to  disabilities suffered by him, he  is  entitled to  be
suitably   compensated   by   awarding   him   monetary
compensation.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent  (Insurance
Company)   urged   that   no   case   for   any   further
enhancement in the compensation is made out and
that   the   High   Court   was,   therefore,   justified   in
upholding the award of the Tribunal.
14. We do not agree with the submission urged by
the   learned   counsel   for   respondent   No.1­Insurance
Company for the abovementioned reasons given by us.
15. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the
grounds mentioned above, which found acceptance to
the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the
appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/­
in lump sum in addition to what has been awarded by
the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.3,43,000/­.
7
16. In other words, the appellant (claimant) is now
entitled to claim a total sum of Rs.8,43,000/­ from the
respondents   jointly   and   severally   by   way   of
compensation for the injuries sustained, partial and
permanent   disability   occurred,   medical   expenses
incurred and loss occasioned due to injuries sustained
by him in the accident.
17. We,   however,   do   not   award   interest   on   the
enhanced   sum   of   Rs.5,00,000/­,   which   we   have
awarded to the appellant. In this view of the matter,
the appellant is entitled to claim interest only on the
sum of Rs.3,43,000/­ at the rate of 8 % awarded by
the Tribunal.
18. The   appeal   thus   succeeds   and   is   accordingly
allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the award
passed   by   the   Tribunal   is   modified   to   the   extent
indicated above.
19. Respondent   No.1   (Insurance   Company)   is
directed to deposit the awarded amount, as mentioned
8
above, within three months in the Tribunal to enable
the claimant (appellant) to withdraw the awarded sum
after making proper verification by the Tribunal. 

                 
    ………...................................J.
       [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                                   
   …...……..................................J.
              [UDAY UMESH LALIT]
New Delhi;
August 31, 2018
9