Back
2012 Supreme(SC) 2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
M. MANI - Appellant;
Versus
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2012,
Decided on : January 2, 2012
IMPORTANT POINT
Principles of awarding compensation in case of permanent injuries discussed.
Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Principles and practice for awarding compensation restated – In personal injury cases compensation will be awarded under different heads laid down in Raj Kumar's case – In routine injuries heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv) are applicable – In permanent injuries heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) are attracted. (Para 10)
(1995) 1 SCC 551; (2010) 10 SCC 254; (2011) 1 SCC 343; (2011) 10 SCC 665; (2011) 10 SCC 683; (1996) 1 QB 273 – Relied upon
(b) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 173 r/w section 2(i), Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Permanent injuries for claiming compensation – Disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of Disability Act as result of injuries sustained in a motor accident are permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. (Para 10)
(c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173(1) – Relevant heads would be (i) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, (ii) future medical expenses and loss of expectation of life – Considering the injuries of the victim and results thereof claimant held entitled to compensation of 6,00,000. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
This is a motor accident claim case praying for enhancement of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
Claimant entitled to compensation of 6,00,000.
ORDER
1. Leave granted. Feeling dissatisfied with the meager enhancement granted by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the amount of compensation determined by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVC No. 3764/2003, the Appellant has filed this appeal.
2. In an accident, which occurred on 2.3.2002, the Appellant suffered following grievous injuries-
1. Type III A open fracture both bones left leg upper one third;
2. Fracture ulna right upper one third; and
3. Fracture 6th and 7th ribs on right side.
3. He was initially treated at Koshys Hospital and was then shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore. Dr. S. Ramachandra, who was then working as Orthopaedic Surgeon in that Hospital opined that the Appellant had suffered permanent disability of about 50% of left lower limb, 40% of right upper limb and 39% of the whole body and that he cannot do manual labour, agriculture farming or any other work which involves sitting or standing and he has to undergo two more operations to correct angulation and malunion deformity of the bones of left leg.
4. The Appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and claimed compensation of ` 6,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum by alleging that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Motor Cycle bearing No. KA-05-Y-2244 belonging to Respondent No. 1 and that as a result of the injuries, he was not in a position to do the work of Coolie which he was doing prior to the accident.
5. Respondent No. 1 did not contest the claim petition. In the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company, all the averments contained in the claim petition were controverted and it was pleaded that the Motor Cycle was not involved in the accident.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following substantive issues-
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that on 02.03.2003, at about 9.40 a.m., near Sri Vinayaka Traders at the junction of Kalkere and T.C. Palya Main Road, he met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries, was due to rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of Motor Cycle bearing No. KA-05-Y-2244 as alleged?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
7. After analysing the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them, the Tribunal held that the Appellant had suffered injuries in the accident, which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Motor Cycle. The Tribunal then referred to the evidence of Dr. S. Ramachandra (PW-2) and awarded compensation of ` 2,14,330/- with interest @ 6% from the date of the petition.
8. The appeal preferred by the Appellant was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court by granting a meager enhancement of ` 48,110/-.
9. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our view, the impugned judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal are liable to be modified because while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal and the High Court did not keep in view the principles laid down by this Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. : (1995) 1 SCC 551, Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. : (2010) 10 SCC 254, which have been reiterated in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar : (2011) 1 SCC 343, Sanjay Batham v. Munnalal Parihar and Ors. (2011) 10 SCC 665 and Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Limited : (2011) 10 SCC 683. In R.D. Hattangadi's case, this Court referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1996) 1 QB 273, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 12 (p.446) and observed:
Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being c
