NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2611 OF 2020
(arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 9689 of 2018)
SAVITHA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/s. CHODAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, a housewife, is in appeal against inadequacy
of compensation granted to her in a motor accident case.
3. The appellant while travelling in a bus belonging to respondent
no.3 on 25.12.2008 met with an accident when a lorry rashly and
negligently dashed against the bus. The appellant suffered nine
injuries out of which seven were grievous in nature. P.W.4, the
Orthopedic Surgeon who operated upon the appellant, deposed
that she had suffered 32 per cent total body disability and was
1
not capable of doing household work. The Tribunal awarded a
total compensation of Rs.5,82,500/ with interest at the rate of
6%, redetermined by the High Court in appeal at Rs.6,50,350/.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
assessment of income at Rs.4,250/ per month was inadequate.
The appellant had claimed an income of Rs.6,000/ p.m. from a
tailoring business which should have been the basis for
assessment of loss of income. The medical opinion of P.W.4 with
regard to extent of whole body disability has been arbitrarily
reduced to 20%.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the
High Court has adequately enhanced the compensation which
calls for no further interference.
6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the
parties. The appellant failed to lead any evidence in support of
her claimed profession as a tailor earning approximately
Rs.6,000/ p.m. and therefore it has rightly been rejected.
2
7. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the appellant
as a housewife at Rs.3,000/ p.m., which has been enhanced by
the High Court to Rs.4,250/ and we find no reason to interfere
with the same. The appellant has been awarded Rs.3,00,000/
towards medical expenses as she failed to lead acceptable
evidence in support of her claim for Rs.4,00,000/. We find no
reason to interfere with the same also. However, we are of the
considered opinion that considering the nature of injuries and
age of the appellant the award of Rs.25,000/ only towards loss
of amenities and future happiness is inadequate and is enhanced
to Rs.50,000/.
8. P.W.4, the Orthopedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant
had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in
nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her
disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the
aid of crutches. Her whole body disability was medically
assessed at 32%. The Tribunal, by hairsplitting the expert
evidence assessed the whole body disability at 15%. The High
3
Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable
to determine the whole body disability at 20%.
9. The appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of
the whole body disability of 32% as opined by P.W.4. The
compensation under that head is therefore redrawn awarding
Rs.2,12,160/ (Rs.4250 x 12 x 13 x 32%).
10. The appellant is therefore held entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.7,54,910/ along with interest at the rate of
six per cent from the date of petition till the date of realization.
11. The appeal is allowed.
.……………………….J.
(R.F. Nariman)
………………………..J.
(Navin Sinha)
………………………..J.
(B.R. Gavai)
New Delhi,
June 16, 2020
4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2611 OF 2020
(arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 9689 of 2018)
SAVITHA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/s. CHODAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, a housewife, is in appeal against inadequacy
of compensation granted to her in a motor accident case.
3. The appellant while travelling in a bus belonging to respondent
no.3 on 25.12.2008 met with an accident when a lorry rashly and
negligently dashed against the bus. The appellant suffered nine
injuries out of which seven were grievous in nature. P.W.4, the
Orthopedic Surgeon who operated upon the appellant, deposed
that she had suffered 32 per cent total body disability and was
1
not capable of doing household work. The Tribunal awarded a
total compensation of Rs.5,82,500/ with interest at the rate of
6%, redetermined by the High Court in appeal at Rs.6,50,350/.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
assessment of income at Rs.4,250/ per month was inadequate.
The appellant had claimed an income of Rs.6,000/ p.m. from a
tailoring business which should have been the basis for
assessment of loss of income. The medical opinion of P.W.4 with
regard to extent of whole body disability has been arbitrarily
reduced to 20%.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the
High Court has adequately enhanced the compensation which
calls for no further interference.
6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the
parties. The appellant failed to lead any evidence in support of
her claimed profession as a tailor earning approximately
Rs.6,000/ p.m. and therefore it has rightly been rejected.
2
7. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the appellant
as a housewife at Rs.3,000/ p.m., which has been enhanced by
the High Court to Rs.4,250/ and we find no reason to interfere
with the same. The appellant has been awarded Rs.3,00,000/
towards medical expenses as she failed to lead acceptable
evidence in support of her claim for Rs.4,00,000/. We find no
reason to interfere with the same also. However, we are of the
considered opinion that considering the nature of injuries and
age of the appellant the award of Rs.25,000/ only towards loss
of amenities and future happiness is inadequate and is enhanced
to Rs.50,000/.
8. P.W.4, the Orthopedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant
had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in
nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her
disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the
aid of crutches. Her whole body disability was medically
assessed at 32%. The Tribunal, by hairsplitting the expert
evidence assessed the whole body disability at 15%. The High
3
Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable
to determine the whole body disability at 20%.
9. The appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of
the whole body disability of 32% as opined by P.W.4. The
compensation under that head is therefore redrawn awarding
Rs.2,12,160/ (Rs.4250 x 12 x 13 x 32%).
10. The appellant is therefore held entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.7,54,910/ along with interest at the rate of
six per cent from the date of petition till the date of realization.
11. The appeal is allowed.
.……………………….J.
(R.F. Nariman)
………………………..J.
(Navin Sinha)
………………………..J.
(B.R. Gavai)
New Delhi,
June 16, 2020
4
