Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 1321
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Jayanandan – Appellant
Versus
Varkey and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 281 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 22423 of 2024]
Decided On : 17-12-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Tom Joseph, Patta Arun Kumar, Kumar Gaurav
For the Respondents: S.L. Gupta, Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, Asutosh Sharma, Rajesh Ranjan Prasad, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Gunjan Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grievous injuries suffered in motor accident – Pain and suffering is not only on account of physical pain but also suffering on account of what has been lost as a result of accident.
(2) Loss of one eye in motor accident may result in 100% functional disability for a Diamond Cutter.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 168 and 173 – Grievous injuries suffered in motor accident – Quantum of compensation – Compensation of Rs. 10,57,500/- with 8% interest awarded by High Court, fixing disability at 65% – Diamond cutting is a task of immense skill which involves a great degree of precision and exactitude – Main process of cleaving and sawing clearly can be completed only when a person is able to see clearly, especially given size of these precious stones – Seeing only with one eye, unquestionably makes it greatly difficult to effectively carry out these processes – 65% as functional disability is insufficient – Given nature of profession and indispensability of ability to see in carrying out job required, facts and circumstances of case warrant that disability of claimant-appellant be taken as 100% – Pain and suffering is not only on account of physical pain but also suffering on account of what has been lost as a result of accident – desire of economic betterment, social betterment, etc. – Once a person is unable to partake in his profession of choice, for no fault of his all these desires are unceremoniously ground to a halt. Rs.50,000/- for a 39-year-old is a case of gross undervaluing suffering of such a person – Compensation under this head enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- – Quantum of compensation enhanced to Rs.15,98,000/- alongwith 8% interest. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 passed in MACA No.93/2019 by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, which, in turn, was directed against Award dated 21st July, 2017 in O.P.(MV) No.1009/2007 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur.
Findings of Court:
Rate of interest, granted at 8% remains unchanged, payable from claim petition.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave Granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 passed in MACA No. 93/2019 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, which, in turn, was directed against Award dated 21st July, 2017 in O.P. (MV) No. 1009/2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur.
3. On 15th February, 2005, the claimant-appellant, who was a diamond cutter by profession, was travelling Eastbound through Kunnamkullam- Wadakkanchery when his motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-08-J-8556 collided with an auto rikshaw bearing No. KL-08-C-6658, due to the alleged rashness and negligence of the auto rikshaw driver. He suffered grievous injuries and a case, FIR No. 51/2005 under Section 279, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Erumaetty, Thrissur. The claimant-appellant suffered a complete loss of vision in one eye.
4. The claimant-appellant filed a claim petition before the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,58,000/-. Vide Award dated 21st July 2017, taking the percentage of disability at 49%, total compensation awarded was Rs. 8,70,000/- with 8% interest.
5. An appeal was preferred before the High Court, being dissatisfied with the amount so awarded. On the question of disability, the High Court observed that the computation of the same at 49% is unjustified since eyesight is directly relatable to being able to continue in his vocation of a diamond cutter. Hence, the same was recomputed at 65%. Compensation as on date of the impugned judgment can be summarised as follows:
| S. No. | Head of claim | Amount awarded by Tribunal | Amount awarded by High Court |
| 1 | Loss of earning | 60,000 | 60,000 |
| 2 | Medical and Miscellaneous expenses | 34,000 | 34,000 |
| 3 | Personal attendants | 5,000 | 5,000 |
| 4 | Transportation expenses | 6,000 | 6,000 |
| 5 | Extra nourishment | 2,500 | 2,500 |
| 6 | Damage to clothing etc. | 1,000 | 1,000 |
| 7 | Pain and suffering | 40,000 | 50,000 |
| 8 | Compensation for permanent or continuing disability (Compensation for loss of earning in future) | 6,61,500 | 8,19,000 |
| 9 | Compensation for disfigurement | 30,000 | 30,000 |
| 10 | Shortened expectancy of life | -- | -- |
| 11 | Loss/reduction in earning capacity | -- | -- |
| 12 | Loss of amenities and conveniences etc. | 30,000 | 50,000 |
| Total | 8,70,000 | 10,57,500 |
6. Further aggrieved by the compensation granted by the High Court, the claimant-appellant is before us. A perusal of the record, as also consideration of the argument advanced, reveals the following points of grievance:
(a) percentage of disability.
(b) compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’.
7. We are inclined to agree with these points. The ascertainment of permanent disability, more specifically its effect on actual earning capacity has been discussed in Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Reference has to be made to Paras 13 and 19 of the said judgment. Keeping the same in view, let us proceed forward. Diamond cutting, as even the uninitiated can understand, is a task of immense skill which involves a great degree of precision and exactitude. The main process of cleaving and sawing clearly can be completed only when a person is able to see clearly, especially given the size of these precious stones. Seeing only with one eye, unquestionably makes it greatly difficult to effectively carry out these processes. 65% as functional disability, in our view, is yet again insufficient. Given the nature of the profession and the indispensability of the ability to see in carrying out the job required, we are of view that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant that d
