SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
SANJAY VERMA – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
HARYANA ROADWAYS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5256 OF 2008
Decided On : 29-01-2014
Facts of the Case-
This quantum appeal is by the claimant seeking further enhancement of the compensation awarded by the High Court.
Findings of the Court-
Taking into account age of claimant 25 years and the fact that he had a steady income, held that an addition of 50% to the income that claimant was earning at the time of accident would be justified. Adoption of multiplier of 17 was held appropriate. Taking into account the addition to the income and the higher multiplier the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant under the head "loss of income" held to be Rs. 10,53,150/- No alteration of amount of compensation payable under the head medical expenses awarding amount of Rs.1,38,552/- Grant of full compensation, as claimed in claim petition i.e.Rs.3,00,000/- under the head "future treatment", would meet the ends of Justice. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant which had left him paralyzed for life and the evidence of PW-1 to the effect that the claimant is likely to suffer considerable pain throughout his life, held that claimant should be awarded a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of "pain and suffering.
Result - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. This quantum appeal is by the claimant seeking further enhancement of the compensation awarded by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital by its Order dated 27.03.2006.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present adjudication may be noticed at the outset.
On 12.08.1998 the appellant-claimant was travelling from Ambala to Kurukshetra in a bus belonging to the Haryana Roadways and bearing registration No. HR-07PA-0197. On the way the driver of the bus lost control over the vehicle resulting in an accident in the course of which the claimant suffered multiple injuries. He was initially treated in the civil hospital Pehwa and thereafter transferred to the PGIMER, Chandigarh on 14.08.1998. The appellant underwent surgery on 16.09.1998 and eventually he was released from the hospital and referred to the Rehabilitation Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Aligarh. According to the claimant, apart from other injuries, he had suffered a fracture of the spinal cord resulting in paralysis of his whole body. In these circumstances the claimant filed an application before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal claiming compensation of a total sum of Rs.53,00,000/- under different heads enumerated below:
(i) Pecuniary loss Rs. 24,00,000.00
(ii) Expenditure incurred in treatment till now Rs. 2,00,000.00
(iii) Expenses which shall be incurred in future in treatment Rs. 3,00,000.00
(iv) Cost of attendant from the date of accident till he remains alive Rs. 2,00,000.00
(v) Passage and diet money Rs. 2,00,000.00
(vi) Pain and suffering and mental agony Rs. 20,00,000.00
Total Rs.53,00,000.00
3. The learned Tribunal by its Award dated 12.06.2000 held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and that the claimant is entitled to compensation. The total amount due to the claimant was quantified at Rs. 3,00,000/- under the heads “Loss of Income”, “reimbursement of medical expenses” and “pain and suffering”. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% from 24.08.1999 i.e. the date of filing of the claim application till date of payment.
4. Aggrieved, the claimant filed an appeal before the High Court which enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,08,052/-. The High Court quantified the amount due to the claimant towards “loss of income” at Rs.6,19,500/-; Rs.1,38,552/- on account of “medical expenses” and an amount of Rs.50,000/- “for future treatment” and “pain and suffering”. The High Court, however, reduced the interest payable to 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the application. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
5. We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant- claimant and Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel for the respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in computing the amount due to the appellant on account of loss of income, future prospects of increase of income had not been taken into account by the High Court; the multiplier adopted by the courts below is 15 whereas the correct multiplier should have been 18. In so far as the amount awarded for “future treatment” and “pain and suffering” is concerned, learned counsel has submitted that not only the amount of Rs.50,000/- is grossly inadequate but High Court has committed an error in clubbing the two heads together for award of compensation. In this regard the learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the amounts claimed in the claim petition under the aforesaid two heads, as already noticed hereinabove. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced.
7. Controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, Dr. Monika Gusain learned counsel for the respondent-Haryana Roadways has submitted that the enhancement made by the High Court to the extent of over Rs.5,00,000/- is more than an adequate measure of the “just compe
Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121
Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2012) 6 SCC 421
Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54
Reshma Kumari and Others vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2009) 13 SCC 422
Reshma Kumari and Ors. vs. Madan Mohan and Anr, (2013) 9 SCC 65
Shakti Devi vs. New India Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2010) 14 SCC 575
Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343
Sanjay Batham vs. Munnalal Parihar and Others, (2011) 10 SCC 665
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.