Advocates:
C. N. SREE KUMAR

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1329 OF 2017

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 22790 OF 2013)

SANDEEP KHANUJA

.....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ATUL DANDE & ANR.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.

2)

In a motor accident, the appellant herein suffered physical injuries. It

happened on July 08, 2006 when the appellant was going on a scooter

to Gram Pendri in the State of Chhattisgarh. When he reached near

Gram Pendri, a Hyundai Getz car bearing Registration No. MH 12 CR

6917, driven by respondent No.1, hit the scooter, as a result of which the

appellant fell down and sustained fractures on both the legs, thereby

suffering permanent disability to some extent. He filed claim for

compensation against the respondents before the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. The MACT, vide

Digitally signed by

ASHWANI KUMAR

Date: 2017.02.02

17:10:22 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

award dated May 05, 2009, granted him compensation in the sum of

5,35,227, under the following heads:

₹

Head

Amount (in Rs.)

Medical & Transport Expenses

-

3,10,227

Loss of Income

-

1,00,000

Mental & Physical agony

-

30,000

Removal of rod inserted in right

leg

-

25,000

Permanent disability to some

extent

-

70,000

TOTAL

-

5,35,227

3)

Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant

approached the High Court by way of appeal under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act'). The High Court has, vide

impugned judgment, enhanced the compensation to 6,35,000. The

₹

High Court has not awarded compensation under different heads but has

deemed it proper to award lump sum compensation in the aforesaid

amount. Relevant discussion in this behalf can be traced to paras 8 and

9 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:

“(8) We have gone through the evidence adduced by the

claimant on the issue of injury sustained by him. In our

opinion, taking into consideration the nature of injury, the

permanent disability occurred on the body of the appellant

(claimant) to some extent, as a result of which he claims to

be not as fit as he was prior to accident in his day-to-day

work, resulting in reducing his capacity to do some extent

of work, the expenditure incurred in receiving medical

treatment in actual, the loss and mental pain suffered due

to his involvement in accident we consider it proper to

enhance in lump sum the compensation from

Rs.5,35,227/- to Rs.6,35,000/-. In other words, in our

3

view, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of

Rs.6,35,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries

sustained by him.

(9) In our considered opinion, due to injuries in both legs

which is also duly proved in evidence by the claimant and

his doctor, he cannot freely move and attend to his duties.

His movements are restricted to a large extent and that too

in young age. It is for all these reasons, we feel that the

Tribunal had awarded a less compensation under this

head and hence, some enhancement under the head of

pain and suffering and also under the head of permanent

partial disability and loss of earning capacity is called for.

This enhancement figure is arrived at taking into

consideration all relevant factors.”

4)

The appellant is not satisfied with the aforesaid approach and the

manner in which the compensation is awarded. According to him, had

the Court applied proper provision and principles laid down under the

Act, the appellant would have been entitled to much more compensation.

5)

We may state, at the outset, that the MACT recorded a specific finding

that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of car by

respondent No.1 which hit the scooter of the appellant. Respondent

No.1 did not challenge the finding of the MACT and, therefore, this

aspect has attained finality and we need not go into the same. The

dispu