Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
PAPPU DEO YADAV – Appellant
Vs.
NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2020
Decided on : 17-09-2020
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Permanent disablement incurred as a result of motor accident – Award of just compensation – Principle consistently followed by Apex Court in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place victim in as near a position as he was in before accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments – Just compensation should include all elements that would go to place victim in as near a position as he was in, before occurrence of accident – Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace loss of a loved one), monetary compensation in a manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive and victims who have to face their lives – There was no justification for High Court to have read previous rulings of this court, to exclude possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement – In addition to loss of earnings, compensation for future prospects too could be factored in. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Permanent disablement incurred as a result of motor accident – Total compensation of 14,25,400/- awarded by Tribunal by applying multiplier of 18 – Appellant, at that time unmarried, was working as a data entry operator/typist at Tis Hazari Courts – Total compensation was reassessed by High Court to be Rs. 14,36,600, after enhancing compensation for disfigurement, diet, attendant and conveyance, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and pain and suffering – Disability was assessed to be 89% – However, Tribunal and High Court re-assessed disability to be only 45%, on assumption that assessment for compensation was to be on a different basis, as injury entailed loss of only one arm – This approach is completely mechanical and entirely ignores realities – Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach but instead, view the matter taking into account realities of life, both in assessment of extent of disabilities and compensation under various heads – In present case, loss of an arm resulted in severe income earning impairment upon appellant – As a typist/data entry operator, full functioning of his hands was essential to his livelihood – What is to be seen is t impact of injury upon income generating capacity of victim – Loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to profession, vocation or business of victim; there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready application – Income generating capacity of appellant was severely affected – Maybe, it is not to the extent of 89%, nevertheless, assessment of disability cannot be 45%; it is assessed at 65% – High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded – In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of income at the time of accident), appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, @ 40% – Compensation payable for disability of loss of an arm (assessed at 65%) would be Rs. 19,65,600/- – Impugned award modified. (Paras 3, 13, 20, 21, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of disability.
Findings of Court:
What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready application.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
The principle that the award can be granted without a disability certificate is reflected in the reasoning that the court considers the actual injury and its impact on the victim, rather than solely relying on formal certification. The judgment emphasizes that medical evidence, expert opinions, and the circumstances of the injury are sufficient to assess the extent of disability and resultant compensation, even when a formal disability certificate is not produced (!) .
Furthermore, it is noted that the assessment of disability should be realistic and based on the functional impairment caused by the injury, which can be established through medical reports and other relevant evidence. This approach ensures that the victim's right to compensation is not denied solely due to the absence of a formal certificate (!) .
In summary, the judgment underscores that the absence of a disability certificate does not bar the court from awarding compensation if the injury and its effects are adequately demonstrated through medical and factual evidence (!) .
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
The appellant questions a decision of the High Court of Delhi 1[dated 13.09.2018, in M.A.C. APP. 520/2016]. On 18.05.2012, the appellant was injured in a motor accident while travelling to Hapur as a passenger in a bus, having paid the requisite fare. At about 1.30 pm when the bus reached village Sadikpur, PS-Hafizpur, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, the driver of the offending bus (the first respondent) sought to overtake the bus in which the appellant was travelling, from the wrong side, and zipped the appellant's bus, scratching it. This rash and negligent act caused a dent in the bus where the appellant was seated, as a result of which he suffered injuries. The appellant was removed to Dr. Khan's Rehan hospital and thereafter, AIIMS Trauma Center. The appellant claimed compensation, impleading the owner, the driver of the vehicle, and the insurer. During the course of proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, he applied for ascertainment of his disability. The disability report (Ex. PW-l/9 dated 01.04.2014 issued by Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, during the motor vehicles compensation claim proceedings) showed that he suffered 89% disability in relation to his right upper limb, which had to be amputated. The report also went on to say that the condition was "non progressive, not likely to improve. Reassessment is not recommended". A first information report (FIR) regarding the accident was registered (FIR No. 57/12), as case Crime No. 255/12, Hazifpur Police Station, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The appellant, at that time unmarried, was working as a data entry operator/typist at Tis Hazari Courts. Prior to the injury, he earned an amount of Rs. 12,000 per month. He had applied for grant of compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereafter "the Act") claiming a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum against the first respondent, (the driver of the bus at the time of the accident), the second respondent (owner of the vehicle), and third respondent (the insurer). The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereafter the "Tribunal") rejected the insurer's objection regarding its jurisdiction and further held that the appellant had suffered serious injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent. It awarded compensation in the following terms:
| 1. | Compensation for medical expenses | 11,000 |
| 2. | Compensation for pain and suffering | 30,000 |
| 3. | Compensation for special diet, attendant and conveyance charges | 30,000 |
| 4. | Loss of future earning capacity/ income | 11,66,400 |
| 5. | Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life | 15,000 |
| 6. | Compensation for disfigurement | 25,000 |
| 7. | Loss of income during treatment | 48,000 |
| 8. | Future medical expenses | 1,00,000 |
| 9. | TOTAL | 14,25,400 |
3. While assessing loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal took the appellant's income to be Rs. 8000 per month, and added 50% towards future prospects. At the time of the accident, the appellant was only 20 years of age. Therefore, a multiplier of 18 was applied. The physical disability was assessed to be 45%, by the Tribunal. The High Court, to which the claimant appealed (and the insurer cross appealed), revised this head of compensation by doing away with the addition of 50% towards future prospects, and reassessed the compensation for loss of earning capacity as Rs. 7,77,600 (Rs. 8000 x 12 x 45% x 18). The total compensation was reassessed by the High Court to be Rs. 14,36,600, after enhancing the compensation for disfigurement, diet, attendant and conveyance, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, and pain and suffering. Further, an interest of 9% per annum was imposed. In reducing the amount awarded for loss of future prospects, the High Court noticed th
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.
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
