1. Road accident resulting in injuries — Claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act — Appeal for enhancement of awarded quantum. (Para 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 619
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N. – Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4255 of 2023 @ (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13736 of 2019)
Decided On : 07-07-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Injuries suffered in motor accident – Quantum of compensation must be just and commensurate with percentage of disability.
Injuries suffered in motor accident – Quantum of compensation must be just and commensurate with percentage of disability.
Subject
Tort Law - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
Act Referred
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173(1) – Quantum of compensation – Injuries suffered in motor accident – Compensation of Rs.2,36.812/- awarded by Tribunal, subsequently affirmed by High Court, alongwith 6% interest – Unique Disability Identification Card issued by Competent Authority to claimant indicating that percentage of disability is 75% – Overall permanent Physical impairment of claimant is 75% – Compensation awarded towards ‘pain and suffering’ is on lower side – Additional Compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded under head ‘pain and suffering – It cannot be presumed that claimant had not suffered any bodily disability at all only because he did not examine employer nor produced certificate or letter from employer – Claimant being a graduate and working as Marketing Executive, his plea of salary being Rs.8,000/- p.m. deserves to be accepted as it is within proximity of truth and same could not have been ignored by Tribunal and High Court on hyper technical grounds – Age of claimant as on date of accident was 24 years – Multiplier of 18 adopted – Prospects of appellant getting married would remain a dream – Sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards “loss of marriage prospects” – In light of compensation awarded towards ‘Loss of Future Income’ sum of Rs.60,000/- awarded by Tribunal under head ‘Permanent Disability’ and ‘Loss of Amenities in Future Life’ would not arise – Compensation of Rs.15,94,812/- with 6% interest awarded. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 10.1, 11 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Claimant not being satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal in M.V.C. No.914 of 2008 sought for enhancement by filing an Appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act in M.F.A. No.6365 of 2009 before High Court of Karnataka, whereunder compensation of Rs.2,36.812/- awarded by Tribunal came to be affirmed and interest awarded @ 8% p.a. came to be reduced to 6% p.a. by judgment dated 07.01.2019. Being aggrieved by same present appeal has been filed.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal and High Court fell in error in construing income of claimant at Rs.3,000/- p.m. instead of Rs.8,000/- p.m. To this extent award passed by Tribunal and affirmed by High Court requires to be modified and compensation requires to be recomputed by taking into consideration salary certificate.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Mr. Pramit Chhetri, Adv. Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. Rohit K Sinha, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Mr. Pramit Chhetri, Adv. Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. Rohit K Sinha, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends compensation is inadequate due to undervalued income and ignored disability — Respondent supports the awards of the Tribunal and High Court. (Para 7 )
3. The court found the disability assessment erroneous, the income undervalued on hyper-technical grounds, and the compensation for pain, suffering, and marriage prospects inadequate. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Compensation for loss of future income must be based on proven income and actual permanent disability, avoiding hyper-technical rejections of evidence. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal allowed in part — Compensation enhanced and modified with directions for payment with interest. (Para 13 )
6. How should a court treat evidence of income when the employer is not examined?
Income claims supported by salary certificates should not be rejected on hyper-technical grounds if the amount is reasonable and consistent with prevailing wages for similar roles at the time of the accident. (Para 10 )
7. What factors justify an increase in compensation for pain and suffering in motor accident claims?
The duration of hospitalization, the severity of injuries (such as cranial fractures and hemiplegia), and the requirement for continuous subsequent treatment justify higher compensation for pain and suffering. (Para 8 )
8. Can a claimant be awarded compensation for loss of marriage prospects?
Yes, where severe permanent physical disability significantly impairs the claimant's prospects of marriage, the court may award suitable compensation for the loss of marriage prospects. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted. I.A. No.177122/2022 for production of additional documents is allowed.
2. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal in M.V.C. No.914 of 2008 sought for enhancement by filing an Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act”) in M.F.A. No.6365 of 2009 before the High Court of Karnataka, whereunder the compensation of Rs.2,36.812/- awarded by the Tribunal came to be affirmed and interest awarded @ 8% p.a. came to be reduced to 6% p.a. by judgment dated 07.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed.
3. We have heard the arguments of Mr. C.B. Gururaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Pramit Chhetri and Animesh Dube, Advocates and Mr. T. Mahipal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, assisted by Rohit K. Sinha. Perused the records.
4. The short point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is:
(1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court deserves to be affirmed or modified?
(2) What order ?
BRIEF BACKGROUND
5. The appellant/claimant met with a road accident on 22.12.2007 and as a result sustained injuries. For award of compensation claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act came to be filed. The Insurer contested the matter before the Tribunal and after trial, Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.2,36,812/- under the following heads:
| Pain, Injuries and suffering | Rs. 50,000/- |
| Medical and incidental Expenses | Rs.1,06,812/- Rs. 10,000/- |
| Loss of earning during laid up period | Rs. 10,000/- |
| Permanent disability | Rs. 40,000/- |
| Loss of amenities in future life | Rs. 20,000/- |
| TOTAL | Rs.2,36,812/- |
6. As already noticed hereinabove, the claimant/appellant challenged the afore-stated award of the Tribunal before the High Court unsuccessfully. Hence this appeal.
7. It is the contention of Shri C.B. Gururaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Tribunal committed a serious error in awarding abysmally less compensation contrary to the evidence on record. He would elaborate his submissions by contending that Tribunal committed a serious error in construing the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- p.m. though it was stated on oath that claimant was aged 24 years on the date of accident and was a graduate, working as a Marketing Executive in a private company and earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. He would contend that Tribunal erred in not taking note of the fact that permanent physical disability to the whole body was 48% as per medical evidence and same had been completely ignored. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
7.1 Per contra, Mr. T. Mahipal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer would support the judgment of the High Court and award passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
8. The accident in question, claimant/appellant having sustained injuries in the said accident, the offending vehicle having been insured with 1st respondent, issuance of policy and same being in force as on the date of the accident are not disputed. The claimant had sustained multiple cranial fractures of C7 and D1 of right transverse process and vertebral hemotoma, as is evident from Ex.P-7 Discharge Summary. Medical record also reflected that claimant had sustained contusion of right brachial plexis with right hemiplegia. The CT Scan Ex.P-12 disclosed extradural haemotoma within right temporal region and hemorrhagic contusions on the right temporal lobe. MRI of cervical spine Ex.P-13 also disclosed contusion and edema within the cord extending from C4 to C7. Claimant had also sustained fractures involving zygomatic arch and squamous temporal bones. For treatment claimant was hospitalized and initially admitted in ICU also. It is in this background Tribunal has awarded compensati
