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

2018 Supreme(SC) 845

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. F. Nariman, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
In The Matter of : Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre – Appellant
Versus
Pratap Son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8420 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1159 of 2018)
Decided On : 21-08-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
Granting lumpsum compensation is impermissible.
In motor accident claims the income should be assessed properly and appropriate multiplier should be applied. Compensation under all heads should be awarded.

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Victim producing his employer as witness who confirmed the salary of 8500/- claimed by victim – High Court without any basis reducing it to 5000/- – Not sustainable. (Para 4)

       (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Victim needs to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life – Just compensation – Held, multiplier of 17 should be applied – Victim should also be compensated for loss of future income and other counts like medical expenses and special diet and attendance charges – Court awarding a total compensation of Rs. 20,29,000. (Para 5, 7, 8)

       (2010) 10 SCC 341; (2009) 6 SCC 121; (2011) 1 SCC 343; (2013) 15 SCC 45 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       This is a motor accident claim case.

       The MACT vide Order dt. 07.02.2015 partly allowed the Claim Petition and granted Rs. 7,00,000 as a lumpsum compensation payable jointly and severally by both the Respondents – owner of offending car and the insurer.

       The High Court partly allowed the Appeal by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 14,65,500 with 9% Interest p.a.. The High Court held that lumpsum compensation cannot be awarded, and the multiplier method must be followed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 20,29,000/-.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Indu Malhotra, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present Appeal by Special Leave has been filed against the final judgment and order in F.A. No. 1353 of 2015 dated 25.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are as follows:

3.1. The Appellant herein is the Claimant, who was 29 year old at the time of the accident, and employed as a driver, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 8,500.

On 16.10.2009, at about 9:30 a.m. the Appellant and his wife were travelling by motorcycle from Pune towards Tambewasi, when a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. MH14/AE 1108 owned and driven by Respondent No. 1 collided with them. The car was coming from the wrong side of the road, and was trying to overtake a State Transport Bus, when it hit the Appellant’s motor cycle.

The Appellant fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries. The Appellant fractured his right thigh, right ankle, and right arm. He was admitted in various hospitals for treatment, and underwent several operations where steel rods were inserted in his right thigh and right knee. Artificial material was inserted in his right shoulder to facilitate restricted movement. The injuries suffered by the Appellant resulted in Permanent Disability to the extent of 75% for which a Disability Certificate was submitted before the MACT. Appellant also filed an Injury Certificate which records the various injuries suffered by him.

3.2. With respect to the injuries sustained by the wife, a separate Claim Petition was filed before the MACT. The present Appeal pertains only to the claim for enhancement of compensation made by the Appellant.

3.3. The Appellant filed Claim Petition bearing M.A.C.P. No. 33 of 2014 before the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhoom seeking compensation under various heads amounting to Rs. 20,00,000 against Respondent No. 1 – the owner of the Maruti Car and Respondent No. 2 –Insurance Company.

3.4. The MACT vide Order dt. 07.02.2015 partly allowed the Claim Petition and granted Rs. 7,00,000 as a lumpsum compensation payable jointly and severally by both the Respondents within one month along with Interest @ 7% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of the Claim Petition till the date of realization. The MACT erroneously made a departure from the multiplier method, and granted a lumpsum amount as compensation. The Tribunal did not grant compensation under various heads such as actual loss of income, future loss of income, medical expenses, and compensation for permanent disability sustained.

3.5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the MACT, and the method used for awarding compensation, the present Appellant filed First Appeal u/S. 173 of the M.V. Act for enhancement of compensation, before the High Court. The High Court vide its Judgment dated 25.01.2017 partly allowed the Appeal by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 14,65,500 with 9% Interest p.a. from the date of application, till realization. The High Court held that lumpsum compensation cannot be awarded, and the multiplier method must be followed. The compensation awarded by the High Court was as follows:-

Claim

Amount awarded (in INR)

i.

Loss of future income (60,000 x 17)

10,20,000

ii.

Loss of actual income

5,500

iii.

Pains and sufferings

1,00,000

iv.

Medical expenses

2,00,000

v.

Attendance and conveyance charges

70,000

vi.

Special diet and nutrition

20,000

vii.

Loss of amenities in future life

50,000

TOTAL

14,65,500

3.6. The Appellant has challenged the judgment of the High Court by way of the present Appeal by Special Leave Petition.

4. We have heard counsel for both parties, and carefully perused the record filed before the Court.

The undisputed facts of the present case are:

4.1. Both the Cour































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