http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 11

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 7989 of 2002

PETITIONER:

Nagappa

RESPONDENT:

Gurudayal Singh & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/2002

BENCH:

M.B. SHAH, B. P. SINGH & H.K. SEMA.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19562 of 1999)

Shah, J.

Leave granted.

Question involved in this appeal is whether one time

payment of compensation to a poor agriculturist would be sufficient to

meet the future medical expenses? It is true that lump-sum

compensation contemplating future eventualities can be granted but at

the same time Is it permissible under the Act to grant recurring

medical expenses to such a victim? Secondly, whether amendment to

the claim petition could be granted at the appellate stage?

Before we deal with this question, we would narrate a few facts.

The appellant, a poor agriculturist, along with some other persons was

travelling in a bullock cart on 6.2.1985 which met with an accident

with a truck as a result of which he suffered injuries including the

injury on right foot and right ankle exposing soft tissues and bones

which was subsequently required to be amputated. Other persons

also sustained injuries and the bullock cart was also damaged. The

appellant, alongwith other injured persons, filed claim application

bearing MVC No. 321 of 1985 before the Claims Tribunal,

Chitradurga. The Tribunal passed an award dated 26.3.1990 granting

a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for injury, pain and suffering, Rs. 5000/- for

loss of enjoyment of life and Rs. 5000/- for loss of earnings and Rs.

5000/- for medical treatment, totaling Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the

rate of 9 % per annum from the date of application. Against that

award, appellant preferred MFA No. 2237/90 before the High Court

of Karnataka at Bangalore. The High Court enhanced the

compensation and awarded Rs.82,000/- towards the loss of amenities

of life, loss of future earnings, pain and sufferings. Apart from this

sum, it was ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to a further sum

of Rs.18000/- for purchase of artificial leg. It has come on record that

the appellant was an agriculturist and that according to the medical

evidence, he had suffered 80 to 85 per cent permanent disability. The

medical evidence further reveals that his right leg was amputated and

he was required to change the artificial leg once in 2 to 3 years.

Before we deal with the question of compensation, we would

refer to second contention which is raised in this appeal.

Amendment to the Claim Petition claiming enhanced

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 11

compensation:-

At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel for the

appellant has filed an application seeking permission to amend the

claim petition and for enhancement of claim to the tune of Rs.5 lacs as

compensation. Before the trial Court, the Claim was only for a sum of

Rs.one lac.

The learned counsel for the Insurance company contended that

the appellant cannot be permitted to amend the claim petition and

claim enhanced compensation. As against this, learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that under the Act there is no prohibition for

amending the claim petition and in any case Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is

applicable to such claim petition under Karnataka Motor Vehicles

Rules. Hence, it is the discretion of the Court to permit amendment of

the claim petition in appropriate case.

Firstly, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

(hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") there is no restriction that

compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the

claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on

record if Tribunal/court considers that claimant is entitled to get more

compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only

embargo isit should be ’Just’ compensation, that is to say, it should

be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This

would