IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7750 OF 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 479 of 2012)
Subulaxmi ...Appellant
Versus
M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
& Another ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The appellant as claimant filed an application under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity `the Act’) before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srivilliputtur (for short `the tribunal’)
forming the subject matter of MCOP No. 244 of 1999, putting forth a claim
of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a
motor vehicle accident. Her claim petition was tried along with the
petition preferred by one Mrs. Muthammal, the applicant in MCOP No. 245 of
1999.
3. The facts which are essential to be exposited are that on 13th March,
1998, the claimant-appellant, aged about 30 years, a match industry worker
while travelling in a bus bearing registration number TN 59-N0912 belonging
to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division (V), the
respondent No. 2 before the tribunal, met with an accident with another bus
bearing registration number TN 59-N0912 belonging to the Madurai Division
(I) of the said Corporation, the respondent No. 1 therein. The accident
occurred because of careless and negligent driving of the drivers of both
the vehicles. In the accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries
which eventually resulted in the amputation of left leg below knee and
abrasion in right shoulder and later amputation of right foot. It was
averred that she was earning a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month at the time of
accident and remained in the hospital for a period of five and half months.
Computing the amount expended, pain and suffering, incapacity to have any
future income and the deprivation of other amenities of life and future
comforts she claimed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation. The
tribunal granted Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation by award dated 22.10.2002
and fastened the liability on both the respondents. It is necessary to
state here that the tribunal had awarded Rs.86,000/- towards permanent
disability assessing the same at 86%, Rs.14,000/- towards pain and
suffering, Rs.66,000/- on the head of loss of future income, Rs.10,000/-
for medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- for
loss of income during the treatment period and Rs.4,000/- towards transport
charges.
4. Being grieved by the award, the Corporation preferred C.M.A. No. 2964
of 2003 and the claimant preferred Cross Objection (MD) No. 45 of 2008 for
enhancement of the quantum. The High Court, while computing the amount of
compensation, did not grant any amount for permanent disability but
enhanced the future income to Rs.1,15,000/- and added Rs.75,000/- for
replacement of artificial limb and for future medical expenses. It also
granted Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant
charges. On certain heads it also marginally enhanced the amount as a
consequence of which the amounts stood enhanced to Rs.2,75,000/-. It is
apt to mention here that the High Court came to the conclusion that the
claimant was entitled for compensation for loss of earning capacity due to
disability and both were to be in compartment. It also did not grant
interest on the enhanced sum. In the ultimate eventuate the High Court
vide its judgment dated 14.7.2010 rejected the appeal filed by respondent
No. 1 and allowed the cross-objection in part. Being dissatisfied, the
claimant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of
compensation.
5. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts as have
been adumbrated are not in dispute. Therefore, first we shall advert to
the issue whether the High Court was justified in awarding compensation on
a singular head relating to permanent disability and loss of future
earning. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another[1],
after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh[2] and B. Kothandapani
v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.[3], this Court expressed the
view that compensation can be granted towards permanent disability as well
as loss of future earnings, for one head relates to the impairment of
person’s capacity and the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering
and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied
upon Laxman v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and
another[4], wherein it has been laid down thus: -
“The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of
an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then
efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not
only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the
pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of
earnings and victim’s inability to lead a normal life and enjoy
amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability
caused due to the accident.”
Thus, the view expressed by the High Court on this score is not
sustainable.
6. Be it noted, the High Court has granted Rs.20,000/- for pain and
suffering and Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities. In this context, we may
profitably refer to Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Limited[5],
wherein this Court after referring to the pronouncements in R.D.
Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.[6], Nizam’s Institute of
Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka[7], Reshma Kumari v. Madan
Mohan[8], Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.[9] and Raj
Kumar v. Ajay Kumar[10] has laid down as under: -
“In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be
followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining
the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who
are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of
the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should
always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the
physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and
his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he
would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the
accident.”
Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state whether in the said case, the
compensation awarded to the claimant-victim was just and reasonable or he
was entitled to enhanced compensation under certain heads, namely, (i) Loss
of earning and other gains due to the amputation of leg; (ii) Loss of
future earnings on account of permanent disability; (iii) Future medical
expenses; (iv) Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to
the amputation of leg; (v) Loss of amenities including loss of the
prospects of marriage; and (vi) Loss of expectation of life.
7. It is seemly to state that in the said case, the tribunal had
awarded Rs.2,56,800/- and the High Court had enhanced the same to
Rs.3,06,000/-. This Court considering various aspects granted Rs.4,53,600/-
in lieu of loss of earning, Rs.2,00,000/- towards future treatment,
Rs.1,50,000/- for pain, suffering and trauma and Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss
of amenity and enjoyment of life and thereby determined the total amount to
Rs.9,53,600/-. While determining the said sum, the Bench observed as
follows: -
“25. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering
and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was meager. It is
not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for
a period of over three months. It is not possible for the
tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain
and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result
of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb,
he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma
throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the tribunals
and the courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing
the amount of compensation.
26. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young
man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma
of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, we feel that
ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs1,50,000 in
lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of
leg.
27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of
amenities was also meager. It can only be a matter of imagination
as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of his life
with one artificial leg. The appellant can be expected to live for
at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live
like a normal human being and will not be able to enjoy life. The
prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it
would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs1,50,000 for
the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.”
8. We have reproduced from the said decision in extenso, as the Court
has dwelled upon the fundamental concept of just compensation regard being
had to the value of life and limb in our country. Needless to say, the
approach in such matters has to be liberal as well as a balanced one.
9. In the case at hand, the tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.86,000/-
towards the permanent disability. The High Court has deleted it. The said
deletion as per our above discussion is impermissible. In our considered
opinion regard being had to the nature of injury suffered and further
taking note of the date of accident, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on this head
would be appropriate and, accordingly, we so determine.
10. Presently, we shall proceed to compute the loss of earning capacity.
The claimant was earning Rs.1,500/- per month and thereby Rs.18,000/- per
annum. As she has suffered 86% permanent disability, the future earning
may be computed at 14% less and accordingly it is estimated that the
multiplicand should be Rs.15,480/- per annum. At the time of accident, she
was 30 years of age, and hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable,
as has been held in Sarla Verma v. D.T.C.[11]. Thus, the loss of future
earning by multiplying the multiplicand of Rs.15,480/- by multiplier of 18,
the amount would come to Rs.2,78,640/-.
11. As far as the pain and suffering and loss of amenities are concerned,
we think it is appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In respect of
other heads, namely, medical expenses, extra nourishment, transport charges
and loss of earning during treatment, the amount awarded by the High Court
is allowed to remain as such. Thus, the amount on the aforesaid scores
would come to Rs.45,000/-. As far as the future replacement of artificial
limbs and other medical expenses are concerned, keeping in view the
escalation of price, we think it seemly to enhance it Rs.1,25,000/-.
12. Presently to the grant of interest. The High Court has declined to
award interest on the enhanced sum. No reason has been ascribed therefor.
Section 171 of the Act deals with award of interest. It reads as follows:
-
“171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed. – Where any
Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this
Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of
compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and
from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it
may specify in this behalf.”
13. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of
India and Another[12], S.B. Sinha, J. in his opinion after referring to the
earlier decisions opined that the question as to what should be the rate of
interest would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and
award of interest would normally depend on the bank rate prevailing at that
time. A.R. Laxmanan, J. in his concurring opinion stated as follows: -
“The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all
relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy
being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long
the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim,
enormity of suffering loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of
life etc., into consideration.”
14. In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tanjore, represented by
its MD v. Natarajan and others[13], this Court awarded interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition on the amount of
compensation.
15. Thus analysed, we are disposed to think that the High Court has erred
in not granting interest on the enhanced sum. As is evincible, the
tribunal had granted payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we find that the
interest awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and accordingly we
direct that the interest on the differential enhanced sum shall carry
interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of deposit of the same before the tribunal. The
respondent corporation is directed to deposit the differential amount
before the tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today.
16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
……………………………….J.
[K. S. Radhakrishnan]
……………………………….J.
[Dipak Misra]
New Delhi;
November 01, 2012.
-----------------------
[1] 2012 (10) SCALE 516
[2] (1990) 3 SCC 723
[3] (2011) 6 SCC 420
[4] 2012 ACJ 191
[5] (2011) 10 SCC 683
[6] (1951) 1 SCC 551
[7] (2009) 6 SCC 1
[8] (2009) 13 SCC 422
[9] (2010) 10 SCC 254
[10] (2011) 1 SCC 343
[11] (2009) 13 SCC 442
[12] (2003) 3 SCC 148
[13] (2003) 6 SCC 137
-----------------------
12
