1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No 2217 OF 2018
[Arising out of SLP (C) No 7739 OF 2017
JAGDISH .....APPELLANT
Versus
MOHAN & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J
1 The appellant was injured in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs. 12,81,228/- for the injuries suffered by him. The High Court
enhanced the award of compensation by an amount of Rs.2,19,000/-. Interest of 7.5
per cent per annum has been awarded from the date of the filing of the claim. The
appellant seeks an enhancement of compensation.
2
2 The appellant was 24 years of age when the accident took place on 24
November 2011. The accident occurred at 4pm when the appellant and another
person were riding on a motor cycle. The appellant who was riding the motor cycle
at a moderate speed indicated to a dumper which was ahead of him to allow him to
pass. When the appellant was passing the vehicle, it swerved on the driver’s side
and hit the motor cycle of the appellant. The appellant was injured in the course of
the accident.
3 The nature of the injuries is evident from the following extract from the
judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kota.
“As for the claimant due to the injuries received by the claimant he
has suffered 90% permanent disability…
The claimant came to give evidence in the matter…
looking at both the hands of the claimant it was noted that…
the hands are not able to perform any function. It has also been
submitted on behalf of the claimant that the claimant himself is
unable to eat food or go to toilet for which he requires the
assistance of someone else as both his hands are unable to
perform any function as it has been stated in Exhibit 168. In such
situation if a person of labour class suffers from an injury due to
which 90% of both his hands are unable to perform any function
then in such situation the claimant would have same difficulty
which would be the permanent disability of his body. Therefore
relying on Exhibit 168 I hold that there has been loss of 90% of
earning ability of the claimant”.
4 The Tribunal found that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the
dumper and that the appellant was liable to be compensated for the injuries sustained
by him.
5 In computing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the
appellant was a carpenter and had claimed that he was in receipt of an income of
3
Rs. 6,000/- per month. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal took
the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 4,050/-. The appellant having been found
to suffer from 90 per cent disability, the loss of the future monthly income was
computed at Rs. 3645/-. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 and held that the
appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of future income of Rs. 7,87,320/-
(Rs. 3645 X 12 X 18). The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1.80 lakhs on account
of mental and physical hardship and agony, Rs. 90,000/- for loss of comfort, Rs.
25,000/- for expenses and Rs. 95,908/- on account of medical expenses. An amount
of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded for attendant charges. The Tribunal awarded a total
amount of Rs. 12,81,228/- as compensation on which interest was allowed at the rate
of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. No amount
was awarded towards expenses for future treatment.
6 In appeal, the High Court awarded an additional amount of Rs. 2,19,000/-. The
High Court directed that if the enhanced amount is not deposited within 8 weeks, it
would carry interest at 9 per cent per annum.
7 The appellant has sought an enhancement of compensation under the
following heads:
(i) The Tribunal ought to have, but did not award any amount towards loss of future
prospects. The appellant submits that in view of the recent judgment of the
Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi1
,
he would be entitled to be compensated for loss of future prospects even though
he is self-employed;
1
(2017) 13 SCALE 12
4
(ii) According to the appellant, the nature of the injuries suffered, resulting in a total
loss of the functionality of both the hands would require compensation to be
computed on the basis of a disability of 100 per cent and not 90 per cent; and
(iii) The income as claimed of Rs. 6,000/- per month should be the basis of
computation and not Rs. 4,050/- as allowed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the
High Court.
8 In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne
in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by
an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation
must cover among others, the following aspects:
(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;
(ii) Loss of income including future income;
(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;
(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to
undertake in future; and
(v) Loss of expectation of life.
In Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd2
, this Court held:
“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
2 2011 (12) SCALE 658
5
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.”
In K Suresh v New India Assurance Company Ltd3
, this Court adverted to the
earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra v Randhir Singh4 and B Kothandapani v
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited5
. The Court held that
compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of future earnings for
the first head relates to the impairment of a person’s capacity while the other relates
to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself.
In Govind Yadav v New India Insurance Company Limited6
, this Court adverted to
the earlier decisions in R D Hattangadi v Pest Control (India) (Pvt) Ltd.7
, Nizam’s
Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S Dhananka8
, Reshma Kumari v
Madam Mohan9
, Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Company
Limited10
, and Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar11 and held thus:
“18. 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.” (Id at page 693)
3
(2012)12SCC274
4
(1990) 3 SCC 723
5
(2011) 6 SCC 420
6
(2011) 10 SCC 683
7
(1995) 1 SCC 551
8
(2009) 6 SCC 1
9
(2009) 13 SCC 422
10 (2010) 10 SCC 254
11 (2011) 1 SCC 343
6
These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Subulaxmi v MD Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation12 delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as
the learned Chief Justice then was).
9 Having regard to these principles, it would be now appropriate to assess the
case of the appellant for enhancement of compensation. The accident took place on
24 November 2011. The appellant was a skilled carpenter and self-employed. The
claim of the appellant that his earnings were Rs. 6,000/- per month cannot be
discarded. This claim cannot be regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a
realistic assessment of the situation on the date of the accident.
10 In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court
has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who
have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of
a self-employed person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should
be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years.
Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs.
2400/- towards loss of future prospects.
11 In making the computation in the present case, the court must be mindful of
the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a
loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it
requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a complete
12 Civil Appeal No. 7750 of 2012, decided on 1 November 2012
7
deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing – at least in the facts of this case – can
restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt
of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should
not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it
does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the
trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse of
rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift
from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable
rights as intrinsic to human dignity.
The Tribunal has noted that the appellant is unable to even eat or to attend to a visit
to the toilet without the assistance of an attendant. In this background, it would be a
denial of justice to compute the disability at 90 per cent. The disability is indeed total.
Having regard to the age of the appellant, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18. In
the circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the loss
of income, including future prospects, would be Rs. 18,14,400/-. In addition to this
amount, the appellant should be granted an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of
pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards
medical expenses (Rs. 98,908/-); for extra nourishment (Rs. 25,000/-) and for
attendant’s expenses (Rs. 1 lakh) is maintained. The Tribunal has declined to award
any amount towards future treatment. The appellant should be allowed an amount of
Rs. 3 lakhs towards future medical expenses. The appellant is thus awarded a total
sum of Rs. 25,38,308/- by way of compensation. The appellant would be entitled to
interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of the
8
filing of the claim petition. The liability to pay compensation has been fastened by the
Tribunal and by the High Court on the insurer, owner and driver jointly and severally
which is affirmed. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period
of 6 weeks from today and shall be paid over to the appellant upon proper
identification.
12 The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
............................................CJI
[DIPAK MISRA]
…….........................................J
[A M KHANWILKAR]
….............................................J
[Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD]
New Delhi
March 6, 2018
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No 2217 OF 2018
[Arising out of SLP (C) No 7739 OF 2017
JAGDISH .....APPELLANT
Versus
MOHAN & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J
1 The appellant was injured in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs. 12,81,228/- for the injuries suffered by him. The High Court
enhanced the award of compensation by an amount of Rs.2,19,000/-. Interest of 7.5
per cent per annum has been awarded from the date of the filing of the claim. The
appellant seeks an enhancement of compensation.
2
2 The appellant was 24 years of age when the accident took place on 24
November 2011. The accident occurred at 4pm when the appellant and another
person were riding on a motor cycle. The appellant who was riding the motor cycle
at a moderate speed indicated to a dumper which was ahead of him to allow him to
pass. When the appellant was passing the vehicle, it swerved on the driver’s side
and hit the motor cycle of the appellant. The appellant was injured in the course of
the accident.
3 The nature of the injuries is evident from the following extract from the
judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kota.
“As for the claimant due to the injuries received by the claimant he
has suffered 90% permanent disability…
The claimant came to give evidence in the matter…
looking at both the hands of the claimant it was noted that…
the hands are not able to perform any function. It has also been
submitted on behalf of the claimant that the claimant himself is
unable to eat food or go to toilet for which he requires the
assistance of someone else as both his hands are unable to
perform any function as it has been stated in Exhibit 168. In such
situation if a person of labour class suffers from an injury due to
which 90% of both his hands are unable to perform any function
then in such situation the claimant would have same difficulty
which would be the permanent disability of his body. Therefore
relying on Exhibit 168 I hold that there has been loss of 90% of
earning ability of the claimant”.
4 The Tribunal found that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the
dumper and that the appellant was liable to be compensated for the injuries sustained
by him.
5 In computing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the
appellant was a carpenter and had claimed that he was in receipt of an income of
3
Rs. 6,000/- per month. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal took
the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 4,050/-. The appellant having been found
to suffer from 90 per cent disability, the loss of the future monthly income was
computed at Rs. 3645/-. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 and held that the
appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of future income of Rs. 7,87,320/-
(Rs. 3645 X 12 X 18). The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1.80 lakhs on account
of mental and physical hardship and agony, Rs. 90,000/- for loss of comfort, Rs.
25,000/- for expenses and Rs. 95,908/- on account of medical expenses. An amount
of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded for attendant charges. The Tribunal awarded a total
amount of Rs. 12,81,228/- as compensation on which interest was allowed at the rate
of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. No amount
was awarded towards expenses for future treatment.
6 In appeal, the High Court awarded an additional amount of Rs. 2,19,000/-. The
High Court directed that if the enhanced amount is not deposited within 8 weeks, it
would carry interest at 9 per cent per annum.
7 The appellant has sought an enhancement of compensation under the
following heads:
(i) The Tribunal ought to have, but did not award any amount towards loss of future
prospects. The appellant submits that in view of the recent judgment of the
Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi1
,
he would be entitled to be compensated for loss of future prospects even though
he is self-employed;
1
(2017) 13 SCALE 12
4
(ii) According to the appellant, the nature of the injuries suffered, resulting in a total
loss of the functionality of both the hands would require compensation to be
computed on the basis of a disability of 100 per cent and not 90 per cent; and
(iii) The income as claimed of Rs. 6,000/- per month should be the basis of
computation and not Rs. 4,050/- as allowed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the
High Court.
8 In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne
in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by
an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation
must cover among others, the following aspects:
(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;
(ii) Loss of income including future income;
(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;
(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to
undertake in future; and
(v) Loss of expectation of life.
In Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd2
, this Court held:
“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
2 2011 (12) SCALE 658
5
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.”
In K Suresh v New India Assurance Company Ltd3
, this Court adverted to the
earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra v Randhir Singh4 and B Kothandapani v
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited5
. The Court held that
compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of future earnings for
the first head relates to the impairment of a person’s capacity while the other relates
to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself.
In Govind Yadav v New India Insurance Company Limited6
, this Court adverted to
the earlier decisions in R D Hattangadi v Pest Control (India) (Pvt) Ltd.7
, Nizam’s
Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S Dhananka8
, Reshma Kumari v
Madam Mohan9
, Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Company
Limited10
, and Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar11 and held thus:
“18. 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.” (Id at page 693)
3
(2012)12SCC274
4
(1990) 3 SCC 723
5
(2011) 6 SCC 420
6
(2011) 10 SCC 683
7
(1995) 1 SCC 551
8
(2009) 6 SCC 1
9
(2009) 13 SCC 422
10 (2010) 10 SCC 254
11 (2011) 1 SCC 343
6
These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Subulaxmi v MD Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation12 delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as
the learned Chief Justice then was).
9 Having regard to these principles, it would be now appropriate to assess the
case of the appellant for enhancement of compensation. The accident took place on
24 November 2011. The appellant was a skilled carpenter and self-employed. The
claim of the appellant that his earnings were Rs. 6,000/- per month cannot be
discarded. This claim cannot be regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a
realistic assessment of the situation on the date of the accident.
10 In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court
has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who
have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of
a self-employed person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should
be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years.
Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs.
2400/- towards loss of future prospects.
11 In making the computation in the present case, the court must be mindful of
the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a
loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it
requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a complete
12 Civil Appeal No. 7750 of 2012, decided on 1 November 2012
7
deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing – at least in the facts of this case – can
restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt
of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should
not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it
does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the
trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse of
rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift
from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable
rights as intrinsic to human dignity.
The Tribunal has noted that the appellant is unable to even eat or to attend to a visit
to the toilet without the assistance of an attendant. In this background, it would be a
denial of justice to compute the disability at 90 per cent. The disability is indeed total.
Having regard to the age of the appellant, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18. In
the circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the loss
of income, including future prospects, would be Rs. 18,14,400/-. In addition to this
amount, the appellant should be granted an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of
pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards
medical expenses (Rs. 98,908/-); for extra nourishment (Rs. 25,000/-) and for
attendant’s expenses (Rs. 1 lakh) is maintained. The Tribunal has declined to award
any amount towards future treatment. The appellant should be allowed an amount of
Rs. 3 lakhs towards future medical expenses. The appellant is thus awarded a total
sum of Rs. 25,38,308/- by way of compensation. The appellant would be entitled to
interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of the
8
filing of the claim petition. The liability to pay compensation has been fastened by the
Tribunal and by the High Court on the insurer, owner and driver jointly and severally
which is affirmed. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period
of 6 weeks from today and shall be paid over to the appellant upon proper
identification.
12 The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
............................................CJI
[DIPAK MISRA]
…….........................................J
[A M KHANWILKAR]
….............................................J
[Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD]
New Delhi
March 6, 2018
