Back
2002(8) Supreme 497
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
M.B. Shah, B.P. Singh & H.K. Sema, JJ.
Nagappa -Appellant
versus
Gurudayal Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7989 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19562 of 1999)
Decided on 3-12-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Kiran Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondents : S.S. Panwar, Advocate for Pradyot Kumar Chakravarty, Advocate.
Held : Hence, as stated earlier, it is for the Tribunal to determine just compensation from the evidence which is brought on record despite the fact that claimant has not p recisely stated the amount of damages of compensation which he is entitled to. If evidence on record justifies passing of such award, the claim cannot be rejected solely on the ground that claimant has restricted his claim. Form 63 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which is for filing an application for compensation, does not provide that claimant should specify his claim amount. It inter alia provides that he should mention his monthly income as well as the nature of injury sustained and medical certificates. In case, where there is evidence on record justifying the enhanced compensation for the medical treatment which is required because of the injury caused to a claimant due to the accident, there is no reason why such amendment or enhanced compensation should not be granted. In such cases, there is no question of introducing a new or inconsistent cause of action. Cause of action and evidence remain the same. Only Question is - application of law as it stands. (Paras 13 and 14)
Held (after case law) : For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award Just compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the M.V. Act. If required, in appropriate cases. Court may permit amendment to the Claim Petition. (Para 21)
(ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166-Is it permissible under the Act to award compensation by instalments or recurring compensation to meet the future medical expenses of the victim? (Yes)-Lump sum compensation contemplating future eventualities was granted at Rs. 1 lakh by High Court-Appellant, an agriculturist having lost one leg in motor accident-Medical evidence showing it 80 to 85 permanent disability -Required to change the artificial leg once in 2 to 3 years after some operation-Claiming enhanced compensation at Rs. 3 lakh in appeal-Whether one time payment of compensation to a poor agriculturist would be sufficient to meet the future medical expenses? It is permissible under the Act to grant recurring medical expenses to such a victim? (Yes, additional compensation of Rs. 1 lakh granted)-Appeal allowed in part.
Held : It is to be clearly understood that M.V. Act does not provide for passing of further award after final award is passed. Therefore, in a case where injury to a victim requires, periodical medical expenses, fresh award cannot be passed or previous award cannot be reviewed when the medical expenses are incurred after finalisation of the compensation proceedings. Hence, only alternative is that at the time of passing of final award, Tribunal/Court should consider such eventuality and fix compensation accordingly. No one can suggest that it is improper to take into account expenditure genuinely and reasonably required to be incurred for future medical expenses. Future medical expenses required to be incurred can be determined only on the basis of fair guess-work after taking into account increase in the cost of medical treatment. (Para 23)
Further, compensation to a victim of a motor vehicle accident or in case of a fatal accident to the legal representatives is awarded under two heads, namely, Special damages - which are suffered by the victim or the legal representatives and General damages - which include compensation for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, earning capacity and prospective expenses including expenses for medical treatment. With regard to the first part of the damages, that is, special damages suffered by the victim or the legal representative, it can be easily proved on the basis of the evidence which is in possession of the claimant. However with regard to the second part- general damages/compensation, it would be a matter of conjectures depending on number of imponderables. (Para 25)
Held (after case law) : In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment, Court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record. In the present case, it has been pointed out that for replacing the artificial leg every two to three years, appellant would be required to have some sort of operation and also change the artificial leg. At that time, the estimated expenses for this were Rs.18000/- and the High Court has awarded the said amount. For change of artificial leg every two or three years no compensation is awarded. Considering this aspect, if Rs. One lac is awarded as an additional compensation, appellant would be in a position to meet the said expenses from the interest of the said amount. Equally it is true that the said amount is required to be properly invested on long-term basis so that recurring medical expenses could be met. (Para 28)
Held finally : In the result, we allow this appeal partly and award additional compensation of Rs. One lac to the appellant. The said amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to invest the said amount on long term fixed deposit in a nearest nationalised bank, in the area where the appellant is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance and the interest on the said amount will be paid annually, directly to the claimant till he survives. However, on an application by the appellant this condition could be modified by the Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant. Finally, after the death of appellant, the amount be disbursed to his legal heirs on their application. The aforesaid condition is imposed so as to see that appellant does not find it difficult to meet periodical medical expenses as required by him. Appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 30, 31 and 32)
Key Points: - The Tribunal/Court may allow amendment to the claim petition to enhance compensation where evidence justifies it; no strict bar to awarding amount beyond what is claimed under MV Act if just and based on evidence. (!) (!) (!) (!) - It is permissible under the MV Act to award recurring/periodic medical expenses (installments) rather than only a lump sum; the Court can consider future medical expenses and may fix such arrangements at final award. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Sub-section 4 of Section 166 and Section 158(6) allow reports of accidents to be treated as compensation applications, enabling the Tribunal to award compensation based on evidence and just compensation, including enhanced amounts. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Shah, J.-Leave granted.
2. Question involved in this appeal is - whether one time payment of compensation to a poor agriculturist would be sufficient to meet the future medical expenses? It is true that lump-sum compensation contemplating future eventualities can be granted but at the same time - Is it permissible under the Act to grant recurring medical expenses to such a victim? Secondly, whether amendment to the claim petition could be granted at the appellate stage?
3. Before we deal with this question, we would narrate a few facts. The appellant, a poor agriculturist, along with some other persons was travelling in a bullock cart on 6.2.1985 which met with an accident with a truck as a result of which he suffered injuries including the injury on right foot and right ankle exposing soft tissues and bones which was subsequently required to be amputated. Other persons also sustained injuries and the bullock cart was also damaged. The appellant, alongwith other injured persons, filed claim application bearing MVC No. 321 of 1985 before the Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga. The Tribunal passed an award dated 26.3.1990 granting a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for injury, pain and suffering, Rs. 5000/- for loss of enjoyment of life and Rs. 5000/- for loss of earnings and Rs. 5000/- for medical treatment, totaling Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per annum from the date of application. Against that award, appellant preferred MFA No. 2237/90 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The High Court enhanced the compensation and awarded Rs. 82,000/- towards the loss of amenities of life, loss of future earnings, pain and sufferings. Apart from this sum, it was ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to a further sum of Rs.18000/- for purchase of artificial leg. It has come on record that the appellant was an agriculturist and that according to the medical evidence, he had suffered 80 to 85 per cent permanent disability. The medical evidence further reveals that his right leg was amputated and he was required to change the artificial leg once in 2 to 3 years.
4. Before we deal with the question of compensation, we would refer to second contention which is raised in this appeal.
Amendment to the Claim Petition claiming enhanced compensation:-
5. At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel for the appellant has filed an application seeking permission to amend the claim petition and for enhancement of claim to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation. Before the trial Court, the Claim was only for a sum of Rs. one lac.
6. The learned counsel for the Insurance company contended that the appellant cannot be permitted to amend the claim petition and claim enhanced compensation. As against this, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under the Act there is no prohibition for amending the claim petition and in any case Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is applicable to such claim petition under Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules. Hence, it is the discretion of the Court to permit amendment of the claim petition in appropriate case.
7. Firstly, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is-it should be Just compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
