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

2014 Supreme(SC) 357

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
V. Mekala – Appellant
Versus
M. Malathi & Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4880 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16561 of 2013)
Decided On : 25-04-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
While awarding compensation, all factors should be properly evaluated.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Claimant a brilliant student of class 11 – Becoming permanently disabled – 16 years of age at the time of accident – Courts below not properly estimating amount of compensation under different heads and granting meager amount – Amount of compensation under all heads like notional income, loss of future prospect, loss of family life, money value etc. re-determined – Compensation enhanced to 30,93,000/- – Interest granted @ 9%. (Para 14 to 24)

       (2012) 6 SCC 421; (1995) 1 SCC 551; (2011) 10 SCC 683; (2011) 1 SCC 343; (2009) 13 SCC 422; (2014) 1 SCC 384; (2011) 14 SCC 481 – Relied upon

       ILR 2004 KARNATAKA 2471 – Cited with approval

       Facts of the case:

       This case relates to determination of compensation in motor accident claim.

       Finding of the Court:

       Courts below granted meagre amount of compensation.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred by the injured-claimant as she was aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 31.8.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A. No. 2131 of 2008 even though it has enhanced the compensation from [pic]6,46,000/- to [pic]18,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition under various heads urging various facts and grounds in justification of her claim.

3. The claimant-appellant is aggrieved by the determination of monthly notional income of the deceased by the High Court by taking a meager sum of [pic]6,000/- instead of [pic]18,000/- per month as she is a student studying in the 11th Standard holding first rank in her school. She had an excellent career ahead of her but for the accident in which she has sustained grievous injuries and has become a permanently disabled. Both the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Poonamallee (for short “the Tribunal”) as well as the High Court of Judicature at Madras failed to take into consideration all the relevant legal aspects of the matter namely, having arrived at the conclusion that on account of permanent total disablement suffered by the claimant- appellant on account of injuries sustained in the accident her future loss of income should have been assessed taking into consideration, her age at the time of accident which was 16 and that she is a brilliant student and could have acquired professional degree and procured a well paid job either in public or private sector thereby at least she would have earned a sum of [pic]18,000/- per month. Also, the future prospects of revision of wages, dearness allowance, increments and promotional benefits could have been earned by her. However, because of the accident caused by rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle of the owner- respondent she has been deprived of her potential income to eke out a comfortable livelihood as she has become permanently disabled, this legal and factual aspect has not been taken into consideration both by the Tribunal and the High Court. Therefore, she placed reliance upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.[ (2012) 6 SCC 421], having regard to her age, 50% of the future prospects should have been added by both the Tribunal and Appellate Court to the notional monthly income that could be fixed for determination of the loss of earning as she had lost her earning capacity as she has become permanently disabled. Therefore, the compensation under this head of loss of earnings is required to be enhanced considerably.

4. The second ground sought to be pressed into operation by the learned counsel on behalf of the claimant-appellant is that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the High Court on the basis of evidence of Doctor-PW2, who has examined the appellant, who has made observations regarding the nature of her injuries which will be recorded in the later part of this judgment.

5. Upon examination of the claimant-appellant, the Doctor-PW2 opined that she is not able to squat, her disability is ascertained at 70%, therefore, she is not able to sit with cross legged comfortably on the floor and the right range of movement (Gionimeter) – fixed flexim deformity of 850 - ligament instability present on account of grievous injuries sustained by her in the unfortunate accident. Therefore, PW2 has assessed the permanent disability of the claimant-appellant at 70% and to this effect he has issued Ex. P12-the Disability Certificate and the same was marked as an exhibit in justification of the claim for awarding just and reasonable compensation under the loss of earning, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and mental agony. The above said substantial piece of evidence in the form of disability certificate on record has not been taken into consideration in the proper perspective by the High Court though



















































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