IMPORTANT POINT
Permanent disability suffered in motor accident – A person's understanding of oneself is shaken or compromised at its very root at hands of consistent suffering.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave granted.

2. The concept of just compensation rests on the principle of restitutio ad integrum which means restoration to the original condition, as far as possible, taking the person to whom damages are awarded, to a position as if the incident or in this case, the accident, had never occurred. While this is a well-recognized and positive principle of law, we must also recognize its limitations. The award of compensation, however much it may be, does not give back to the person who affected their life but only alleviates the worry of being able to secure the required amenities.

3. In awarding non-pecuniary damages, this Court has often highlighted the difficulty in computation, for there is no manner in which such determination lends itself to formulaic ciphering. Every person in life has undertaken certain steps towards the realization of dreams, held goals and aspirations, and when they land up in such an unfortunate situation, where, for no fault of theirs, the trajectories of their lives are forever altered. Although, abstract in the written word, these factors form a large part of the ‘pain and suffering’ one undergoes apart from the manifested disability, which may be visible to another person.

4. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 12th November 2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in M.F.A.No.2573 of 2016 (MV). This Miscellaneous First Appeal, in turn, was filed against the Award dated 17th April 2015 passed in M.V.C. No.3955 of 2009 by the Court of IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Small Causes Court, at Bangalore¹[ hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’].

5. Certain past events require recall for adjudication of the present dispute.

5.1 On 22nd August 2008, the appellant was travelling in his Company vehicle, bearing registration No. KA-02-D-9626, towards his place of employment, situated at Kasaba Industrial Area, Hoskote. On the way, the vehicle collided with a container lorry bearing registration No.TN-04-D- 1047, which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently.

5.2 The injuries sustained were to the extent of 90% permanent disability (as per the case put forward by the claimant-appellant before the Tribunal), i.e.,

“1. Fracture co-vertebra with anterior dislocation over C7

2. Cervical Spine revealed dislocation of C-6 over C-7. C-7 Bilateral transverse process fracture and

3. C-6 fracture both laminae and body.”

5.3 The Hoskote Police have registered a case bearing Crime No.414 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860²[ IPC for short], against the driver of the lorry.

5.4 It was contended before the Tribunal that the claimant-appellant was employed as a workman in L.M. Glassfibre (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hoskote, earning a gross salary of Rs.28,221/- per month. Apart from being so employed, he was also an agent with the Life Insurance Corporation of India earning an annual commission between Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per annum.

5.5 Having heard arguments, the Tribunal framed two issues, one relating to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and the second regarding the quantum of compensation and by whom it will be payable.

5.6 The Tribunal³ [It is to be noted that this determination of compensation was made after the High Court remitted the matter vide order dated 12th August 2014 for consideration afresh, on appeal from award dated 10th February 2011 passed by the IXth Additional Senior Civil Judge, member, MACT-7, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore] concluded that the lorry was indeed being driven rashly and negligently and qua compensation it was held that respondent No.2 therein (New India Assurance Company Limited) would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest per annum on the above said sum (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-) from the date of Petition till payment.

6. Aggrieved by the order, both, the Insurance Company and the claimant- appellant, approac