Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 2305
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Anoop Chinappa – Appellant
Versus
S.D. Poornaprakash and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2019, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9381 of 2019, Diary No. 47630 of 2018
Decided On : 09-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Shailesh Madiyal, Vipasha Singh, Mahesh Thakur.
For the Respondents: Dr. Meera Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Mishra.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the computation of compensation for severe injuries and disability, taking into account the appellant's total functional disability and severe memory loss.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation - 6% per annum - Rs. 10,40,000 - Rs. 1,50,000 - Rs. 33.60 lakhs - 9%
Fact of the Case:
The appellant met with a motor accident resulting in severe injuries and disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs. 10,40,000, which was enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 11,90,000. The Supreme Court further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 33.60 lakhs and directed interest at 9% per annum.
Finding of the Court:
The appellant was found to be suffering from severe memory loss and total functional disability, leading to the conclusion that he is dependent for all his activities of daily living.
Issues: The main issue was the computation of compensation for the appellant's severe injuries and disability, considering his total functional disability and severe memory loss.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the appellant's severe injuries, total functional disability, and severe memory loss in determining the compensation. The court also applied a monthly income of Rs. 20,000 and a multiplier of 15 to arrive at the enhanced compensation of Rs. 33.60 lakhs.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant to Rs. 33.60 lakhs, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The enhanced compensation was directed to be invested in a fixed deposit of a nationalized bank, with the interest to be paid over on a monthly basis for a period of ten years.
JUDGMENT :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court at Karnataka in a First Appeal against the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”), Kodagu at Madikeri.
4. The High Court has enhanced the compensation of Rs. 10,40,000 awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000 while confirming the award of interest at 6% per annum.
5. The appellant, who was 44 years of age, met with an accident on 21 June 2008 while proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration no. GDG-6958. While he was travelling on Madikeri-Mysore Road, a Maruti van, bearing registration no. KA-12N-5305 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which the appellant suffered grievous injuries. He was hospitalized for about twenty days in the ICU. At the time of the accident, the appellant was running a home stay and is stated to have been conducting treks for foreign tourists.
6. The appellant made a claim for compensation before the MACT. By its order dated 10 December 2012, the MACT held that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle. In regard to the nature of the injuries, the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the condition of the appellant. It would be instructive to extract from the decision of the Tribunal:
“10. At Ex.P-9 the petitioner has produced wound certificate obtained from the District hospital, Madikeri. The evidence on record discloses that the petitioner was first taken to the District hospital, Madikeri and then to K.M.C. hospital, Manglore and thereafter to Christian Medical College, Vellore. In Ex.P.9 it is mentioned that multiple abrasions on the face, arms and trunk and fracture of the mandible were seen. It also discloses that contusions in the left seen.
11. At Ex.P-10 discharge summary obtained from K.M.C hospital, Mangalore and at Ex.P-11 one abstained from the Christian Medical College, Vellore are produced. PW-2 is a Neuro surgeon from K.M.C. hospital, Mangalore. He has stated that the condition of the petitioner was critical when he was brought to the hospital, that his eyes were not opening, that he was not verbalizing, he was just moving in the upper limbs that pain and his neurological status was poor. Then he has deposed that CT scan disclosed multiple contusions of the brain. Further he has deposed that surgery was done for mandible fracture.
12. In the discharge summary Ex.P-10 under the heading FINAL DIAGNOSIS it is mentioned as follows:
“RTA with CEREBRAL EDEMA WITH MULTIPLE CONTUSIONS WITH DISPLACED SEGMENTAL FRACTURE OF MANDIBBLE”
13. In Ex.P-11 under the heading Diagnosis, it is mentioned as follows:
“TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY SEQUELAE”
14. Ex.P-10 discloses that the mandible was fractured. In Ex.P-11 under the heading ‘Central nervous system examination’ it is mentioned though the petitioner was understanding the commands, his response was delayed and inconsistent, attention span was 5-10 minutes, long term memory was intact and short term memory was affected. Then it is mentioned as follows:
“Right sided orbicularis oris weak.” Further it is mentioned that bilateral neck movements and shrugging of shoulders were weak. It is also mentioned that the petitioner was moderately dependent for everything and he was taught timed voiding for bladder.
15. PW-2 has further deposed that recovery was not complete and petitioner was not able to verbalize and he was hemi paralytic. Further he has deposed that at the time of discharge the petitioner was able to stand only with support but was not able to walk and was on wheel chair. Then he has deposed that there would be some psychological deficit for which the petitioner has to undergo neurological assessment. It is also stated by him that only the left hand of the petitioner can be moved.
16. At Ex.P-12 a certificate obtained from the Christian Medical College, Vellore is produced. In that it
