Back
2011 (7) Supreme 500
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ
Ibrahim — Appellant
versus
Raju and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.8943 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25372 of 2005)
Decided on : 31-10-2011
(b) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (Act 59 of 1988) ¯ Section 166 ¯ Future treatment ¯ Held the claimant is also entitled to compensation for expenses likely to be incurred by him in future treatment ¯ In the instant case the appellant was aged only 18 years at the time of the accident, tribunal had awarded him Rs.20340/- for the expenses incurred in the treatment ¯ Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the fact that he will have to take treatment for the remaining life, it will be reasonable to infer that he will be required to spend a minimum of Rs.1,000/- per month for future treatment, which would necessarily include fees of the doctors, medicines, transportation, etc ¯ In the absence of concrete evidence about the anticipated expenditure, held ends of justice will be met if the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.2 lacs which, if deposited in a fixed deposit, would earn an interest of Rs.14,000/- to 16,000/- per annum. (Para 18)
(c) Motor Vehicle Act (59 of 1988) ¯ Award of compensation amount exceeding amount of compensation claimed ¯ There is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. (Para 21)
(d) Motor Vehicle Act (59 of 1988) ¯ Compensation for loss of marriage prospects ¯ Held, on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant, the prospects of the appellant’s marriage considerably reduced, rather, extremely bleak ¯ On account of the fracture of pelvis, he will not be able to enjoy the matrimonial life ¯ The compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by MACT under this head found wholly inadequate ¯ Court enhanced to Rs.2 lacs. (Para 19)
Facts of the Case
(1) The appellant sustained serious injuries on the head, nose, back and lower region of abdomen including the pelvic region when the tempo in which he was travelling met with an accident ¯ He was taken to Orthopaedic Centre for first aid and was then shifted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal ¯ He remained in the hospital one and half months. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- pleading that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by its driver that he had suffered serious injuries in the accident ¯ Owner and driver of the offending vehicle not contesting the claim petition, only Insurance company contested the petition ¯ MAC Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo awarded total compensation Rs. 1,49,440/- ¯ In appeal High Court enhanced the amount by a sum of Rs. 40,000/- ¯ Claimant filed appeal before Supreme Court ¯ Held, the claimant was also entitled to expenses for future treatment and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, awarded total compensation Rs. 6 lacs.
Finding
Claimant in view of the nature of the injuries sustained is also entitled to compensation for future treatment ¯ Compensation enhanced.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the High Court in the amount of compensation awarded by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karwar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the appellant has filed this appeal.
4. The appellant sustained serious injuries on the head, nose, back and lower region of abdomen including the pelvic region when the tempo in which he was travelling met with an accident on 23.4.2000. He was taken to Vijayashree Orthopaedic Centre for first aid and was then shifted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. He remained in the hospital from 23.04.2000 to 05.06.2000.
5. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) and claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest and cost. He pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by its driver Shri Raju; that he had suffered serious injuries in the accident; that he remained in the hospital for almost one month and a half and had to spend more than Rs.80,000/- towards medical treatment, conveyance and expenses of the attendants; that at the time of accident he was a student of Class 8 and on account of the injuries he was not in a position to continue his studies.
6. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, who were impleaded as non-petitioners No.1 and 2 did not contest the claim of the appellant. However, the National Insurance Company, which was impleaded as non-petitioner No.3 contested the claim by asserting that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo and that the appellant was himself responsible for the accident.
7. Two of the four issues framed by the Tribunal were whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo and whether the appellant was entitled to compensation. After analysing the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo. The Tribunal then referred to the statements of Dr. Anil K. Bhat, Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics, who issued disability certificate Exhibit P-140 and Dr. Joseph Thomas, Professor of Urology, who issued treatment certificate Exhibit P-141 (both the doctors were working in Kasturba Medical College and Hospital, Manipal) and awarded compensation to the appellant under the following heads:
1. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.20,340/-
3 Transportation Rs. 1,900/-
4. Diet and attendant charges Rs.30,600/-
5. Loss of future earning on Rs.21,600/-
account of disability
6. Decline in the prospects of Rs.50,000/
marriage -
___________
Total Rs.1,49,440/-
8. The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Act and enhanced the amount of compensation by a sum of Rs.40,000/-.
9. The appellant has questioned the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that while determining the amount of compensation, the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court overlooked the parameters and principles laid down by this Court and did not take into consideration the expenses likely to be incurred by him for future treatment and the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The sufferings of the dependents of those who are killed in motor accidents and the survivors who are disabled are manifold. Some time these can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is disabled as a result of road accident, the cost of treatment, care and rehabilitation is likely to be very high. A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children and women and, on account of sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, majority of them are unable to engage competent lawyers for putting their cause before the Tribu
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
