SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 930

2010 (6) Supreme 844
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Arvind Kumar Mishra — Appellant
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5510 of 2005
Decided on : 29-9-2010

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation – The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can. (Para 6)

        (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – The multiplier method still holds the field with variations in maximum multiplier – Instantly, a multiplier of 18 would be justified. (Paras 9 and 11)

        (1994) 2 SCC 176; (2009) 6 SCC 121 – Relied upon

        (c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Second Schedule – Second Schedule having no application, there is no need to await decision of the larger Bench referred in (2009) 13 SCC 422. (Para 12)

        (2009) 13 SCC 422 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

        This case concerns compensation to motor accident victim suffering 70% permanent disability.

       Finding of the Court:

        A multiplier of 18 would be justified in instant case.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment endorses the multiplier method for assessing damages in personal injury cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and discusses the basis as compensation to place the claimant in the position he would have been in financially (!) (!) . - The Court applies the concept of loss of future earnings using a multiplicand (42,000 per annum) and a multiplier (18) to calculate total future earnings loss of Rs. 7,56,000 for a 25-year-old claimant with 70% disability (!) . - The appeal is allowed in part; compensation enhanced from Rs. 3,50,000 to Rs. 9,06,000 with 9% simple interest from August 7, 2002, and costs awarded Rs. 15,000 (!) .

What is the method for assessing damages in personal injury claims under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 as applied in this case?

What are the applicable multipliers and multiplicands used to compute loss of future earnings for a 70% permanently disabled claimant?

What is the outcome of the appeal regarding the enhanced compensation and interest in this motor accident claim?


JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J. —

The present appeal, by special leave, raises the issue, indeed the only issue, of assessment of loss of earnings in respect of the victim of a motor accident who was certified 70% permanent disablement.

2. Arvind Kumar Mishra - appellant - a student of engineering final year at Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra (B.I.T.) at the time of accident was seriously injured as a result of a truck bearing registration No. DEG 3291 being negligently driven on June 23, 1993. The truck coming from the opposite direction hit the motorcycle and the appellant riding the motorcycle was thrown on the road. He sustained multiple injuries; diffused multifocal damage of brain with interventricular hemorrhage; optic atrophy in right eye and 3+ relative afferent papillary in left eye; amputation of right hand distal to carpometacarpal joint level; compound fracture of shaft of tibia (left); total bronchial plexus palsy; blocking of anterior wall of the trachea at the level of the 3rd and 4th cartilaginous rings and disfiguration. He was treated by several doctors at various hospitals namely, R.M.C.H, Ranchi, C.C.L .Hospital, Gandhinagar, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore and Shankar Netralaya, Madras. He had to undergo few surgical operations. After a little recovery, he made an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the 1988 Act’) claiming total compensation in the sum of Rs. 22 lakhs which included the expenditure already incurred by him up to that time to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- for his treatment.

3. The offending vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (‘the insurer’). The owner as well as insurer contested the claim petition. The appellant passed out Bachelor of Engineering during the pendency of the claim petition.

He examined himself and tendered some of the doctors who treated him in evidence. The vouchers of the expenditure incurred by him on his treatment at various hospitals were also produced.

4. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in its award dated December 19, 2002 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. DEG 3291. It also held that the owner of the vehicle and the insurer were liable to pay the compensation to the appellant. As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal allowed the total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with the interest @ 9% per annum from August 7, 2002 by considering the matter as follows:

“.......under the head of pecuniary damages the amount which has been amended (sic) by the claimant in his treatment including medical expenditure other material loss, a total lump sum compensation amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand only) is being granted to the claimant. So far as non- pecuniary damages are concerned from the evidence itself it is very much clear that injured was a brilliant student of engineering Final year at B.I.T. Mesra, and due to said accident he has lost his future career. He has also suffered from mental and physical shock and has to be suffered in future. There is also damages and the loss of expectation of life on account of the injuries sustained by him. He has to face inconvenience, hardship, discomfort disappointment and mental stress till his life, therefore, a lump sum compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) is being granted to the claimant. The total compensation came to Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lac and fifty thousand only) which the claimant is entitled with interest @ 9% per annum.”

5. The claimant, dissatisfied with the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal, approached the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The High Court increased the amount of compensation from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- having considered the matter thus:

“On an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide Compensation Case No. 183 of 1993 the Mo












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top