IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, J.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Reeta Rani Bhagendra Singh - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1800 of 2010
Decided On : 03-04-2017

The Court held that the MACT had committed a gross error in determining compensation on the basis that Bhagendra died as a result of the accident dated 17.10.1991. The Court noted that Bhagendra died in the year 2006, almost 15 years after the date of the accident. The Court also held that the MACT had failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record, which established that despite being tetraplegic, Bhagendra was continued in service from 17.10.1991 to 04.02.1994 and it was Bhagendra, who opted for retirement on medical grounds. The Court further held that the MACT had also failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record, which established that all expenses for the treatment of Bhagendra were borne by the appellant.

Headnote:

MOTOR ACCIDENT - DEATH OF NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER IN INDIAN ARMY - LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - PECUNIARY DAMAGES - NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES - JUST AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

Bhagendra Singh, a non-commissioned officer with the Indian Army, suffered serious injuries in a road accident on 17.10.1991, resulting in Tetraplegia. He survived as a cripple and a tetraplegic from 17.10.1991 till 2006, when he expired under tragic circumstances. Bhagendra's widow, daughter, and son instituted a Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Pune. The MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 13,09,500/- to the respondents-claimants. The Union of India challenged the award, contending that the quantum of compensation was excessive and should be scaled down.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the MACT had committed a gross error in determining compensation on the basis that Bhagendra died as a result of the accident dated 17.10.1991. The Court noted that Bhagendra died in the year 2006, almost 15 years after the date of the accident. The Court also held that the MACT had failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record, which established that despite being tetraplegic, Bhagendra was continued in service from 17.10.1991 to 04.02.1994 and it was Bhagendra, who opted for retirement on medical grounds. The Court further held that the MACT had also failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record, which established that all expenses for the treatment of Bhagendra were borne by the appellant, since Bhagendra was initially admitted to the Base Hospital at Tezpur, Assam and thereafter, at the Military Hospital at Kirkee (Pune).

Issues: 1. Whether the MACT erred in determining compensation on the basis that Bhagendra died as a result of the accident dated 17.10.1991? 2. Whether the MACT failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record, which established that despite being tetraplegic, Bhagendra was continued in service from 17.10.1991 to 04.02.1994 and it was Bhagendra, who opted for retirement on medical grounds? 3. Whether the MACT failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record, which established that all expenses for the treatment of Bhagendra were borne by the appellant?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the MACT had committed a gross error in determining compensation on the basis that Bhagendra died as a result of the accident dated 17.10.1991. The Court noted that Bhagendra died in the year 2006, almost 15 years after the date of the accident. The Court also held that the MACT had failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record, which established that despite being tetraplegic, Bhagendra was continued in service from 17.10.1991 to 04.02.1994 and it was Bhagendra, who opted for retirement on medical grounds. The Court further held that the MACT had also failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record, which established that all expenses for the treatment of Bhagendra were borne by the appellant. 2. The Court held that the MACT had committed a gross error in determining compensation on the basis that Bhagendra died as a result of the accident dated 17.10.1991. The Court noted that Bhagendra died in the year 2006, almost 15 years after the date of the accident. The Court also held that the MACT had failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record, which established that despite being tetraplegic, Bhagendra was continued in service from 17.10.1991 to 04.02.1994 and it was Bhagendra, who opted for retirement on medical grounds. The Court further held that the MACT had also failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record, which established that all expenses for the treatment of Bhagendra were borne by the appellant.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellants to pay to the respondents compensation of Rs. 25,24,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the application till the date the amount is paid in full.