# SIDRAM v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR

- **Citation:** [2022] 8 S.C.R. 403
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-11-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8510 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, J. B. Pardiwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sidram-v-the-divisional-manager-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-and-anr-36429
- **Pages:** 72

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Compensation - Enhancement of
- Motor Accidents Claim - Claimant, aged 19 years suffered
grievous injuries in a road accident - Claimant suffered from
paraplegia due to the accident which caused permanent disability
to the extent of 45% - Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.
6,13,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
filing of the petition till the date of realisation of payment - However,
the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9,26,800/- - On
appeal, held: Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not
only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but
often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim - On
facts,oral evidence of the doctor that the claimant suffered
permanent disability to the tune of 45% - Evidence on record
indicate that the claimant suffered paraplegia due to the accident,
which is a form of paralysis of lower body and it restricts everyday
routine more particularly the physical activity - Paraplegia impairs
physical, mental and psychological health and had devastating
impact on the social and financial well being of the victim - It leads
to 100% loss of earning - Claimant's business could be said to
have been gravely impacted - In view thereof, the compensation
enhanced from Rs. 9,26,800/- to Rs 21,78,600/-.
Compensation: Just Compensation - Explanation of - Held:
'Just compensation' should include all elements that would go to
place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the
occurrence of the accident - No amount of money or other material
compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim
undergoes after a serious accident - Monetary compensation is the
manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of
restitution to those who survive and the victims who have to face
their lives.
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 403
403
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The process of determining the compensation
by the court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be
an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more
so in claims of injury and disability. The principle consistently
followed by this Court in assessing motor vehicle compensation
claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he
was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions
for loss of amenities and other payments. [Para 29, 30][420-H;
421-A-C]
1.2 It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases
of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident,
the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of
income, amounts for future prospects as well. There are many
orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different
High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to
compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving
serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not
a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the
possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases
involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement.
Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether
the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in
accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects,
in case of the victim's death. [Para 31][421-C-E]
1.3 ''Just compensation" should include all elements that
would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was
in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of
money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain
and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident,
(or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is
the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure
of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to
face their lives.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,824 of 153,126. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39824 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
403
SIDRAM
v.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO. LTD. AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8510 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 16, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Compensation - Enhancement of
- Motor Accidents Claim - Claimant, aged 19 years suffered
grievous injuries in a road accident - Claimant suffered from
paraplegia due to the accident which caused permanent disability
to the extent of 45% - Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.
6,13,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
filing of the petition till the date of realisation of payment - However,
the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9,26,800/- - On
appeal, held: Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not
only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but
often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim - On
facts,oral evidence of the doctor that the claimant suffered
permanent disability to the tune of 45% - Evidence on record
indicate that the claimant suffered paraplegia due to the accident,
which is a form of paralysis of lower body and it restricts everyday
routine more particularly the physical activity - Paraplegia impairs
physical, mental and psychological health and had devastating
impact on the social and financial well being of the victim - It leads
to 100% loss of earning - Claimant's business could be said to
have been gravely impacted - In view thereof, the compensation
enhanced from Rs. 9,26,800/- to Rs 21,78,600/-.
Compensation: Just Compensation - Explanation of - Held:
'Just compensation' should include all elements that would go to
place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the
occurrence of the accident - No amount of money or other material
compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim
undergoes after a serious accident - Monetary compensation is the
manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of
restitution to those who survive and the victims who have to face
their lives.
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 403
403
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The process of determining the compensation
by the court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be
an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more
so in claims of injury and disability. The principle consistently
followed by this Court in assessing motor vehicle compensation
claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he
was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions
for loss of amenities and other payments. [Para 29, 30][420-H;
421-A-C]
1.2 It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases
of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident,
the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of
income, amounts for future prospects as well. There are many
orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different
High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to
compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving
serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not
a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the
possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases
involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement.
Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether
the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in
accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects,
in case of the victim's death. [Para 31][421-C-E]
1.3 ''Just compensation" should include all elements that
would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was
in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of
money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain
and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident,
(or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is
the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure
of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to
face their lives. Making a monetary assessment of the injury
suffered is the only process devised to compensate the victim.
The process of making such an assessment, whether in case of
death or injury, is provided in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
405
Act which requires that the tribunals constituted under the Act
determine compensation, which appears to be 'just'. Thus, the
Act vests a wide discretion upon the tribunals. [Para 32, 38][421F-G; 430-A-B]
1.4 Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only
permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too
often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim.
The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world
entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid,
and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete
personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's
mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe
limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity
(which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right
to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person
of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he
had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim
is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting
and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts
oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the
injured victim. [Para 113][473-E-G]
2.1 The courts must apply the multiplier method, while
ascertaining the compensation to be awarded to the victim. [Para
53][453-G]
2.2 The evidence on record indicates that the appellant
suffered paraplegia due to the accident. Paraplegia is a form of
paralysis of lower body. It restricts everyday routine more
particularly the physical activity and leads to (i) deprivation of
simple pleasures and amenities of life, (ii) 100% loss of earning
capacity, (iii) long term secondary complications requiring
continuous care, medical treatment and hospitalization, (iv) feeling
of helplessness, depression, anger, stress, anxiety, etc. In short,
paraplegia impairs physical, mental and psychological health and
has devastating impact on the social and financial well being of
the victim. In the case on hand, the appellant was in the business
of selling utensils and used to travel to various villages to sell
the same. With this disability in the form of paraplegia being
SIDRAM v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
suffered by the appellant, it is not possible for him now to walk a
long distance or stand for a long period. His business could be
said to have been gravely impacted. Further, the appellant at the
time of accident was just 19 years old. The High Court enhanced
his notional income from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month.
The appellant claimed that his notional income be determined at
Rs. 9,000/-.Thus, more particularly keeping in mind the dictum
of this Court in the case of Kirti's case that it is not necessary to
adduce any documentary evidence to prove the notional income
of the victim and the Court can award the same even in the
absence of any documentary evidence. The Court should ensure
while choosing the method and fixing the notional income that
the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular
case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor
too liberally. Thus, the notional income of the appellant is
determined at Rs. 8,000/- per month. The same would result in
the compensation being enhanced as under: 8000 x 12 x 18 x
45% = INR 7,77,600/- [Para 56, 57, 59, 60][455-C-E; 456-A-C]
2.3 Compensation under the head loss of earning for 6
months was awarded by the tribunal and the High Court. The
tribunal awarded only Rs. 40,000/- under this head. The High
Court enhanced it to Rs. 42,000/-. The payment towards loss of
earning for six months as awarded by the High Court is upheld
and applying the revised income, enhance the same as under:
8000 x 6 = INR 48,000/- [Para 61, 62][456-D-E]
2.4 The appellant claims Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical
expenses. In this regard, the appellant adduced documentary
evidence in the form of medical bills/receipts to the tune of
Rs.1,54,931/-, as stated in the order of the tribunal. The
compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- is granted towards medical
expenses. [Para 63, 66][456-F; 457-B]
2.5 The "Future Medical Expenses" and "Attendant
Charges" would fall within the ambit of Pecuniary Expenses. The
tribunal observed that the doctor has deposed that the appellant
is likely to incur expenses of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards future medical
expenses. However, according to the Tribunal, there was no
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
407
sufficient and cogent evidence in that regard under this head.
Accordingly, the tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/-. The High Court
thought fit not to award any amount for future medical expenses
as there was no evidence adduced by the appellant in regard to
future treatment that may be required. The High Court however,
thought fit to clarify that in the event if the appellant incurs any
expenses towards any surgery or treatment in future on account
of the injury suffered and if he proves the same, then the insurer
shall indemnify the same. PW-2-doctor deposed categorically that
the appellant would require future medical expenses to the tune
of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Having regard to the evidence on record that
the appellant would be incurring costs towards medical expenses
in future along with physiotherapy and nursing and considering
that the appellant at the time of accident was 19 years old, today
his age would be around 29 years, even if a bare minimum of
Rs. 1000/- is spent per month, then it comes to:1000 x 12 x 18 =
Rs. 2,16,000/- . Rs. 2,16,000/- is awarded towards future medical
expenses. [Para 67-69, 72][457-C; 457-F-H; 458-A-B; 459-C]
2.6 Under the head attendant charges, neither the tribunal
nor the High Court thought fit to award anything. The evidence
on record indicates that the appellant is unable to stand, walk, sit
or bend his body or lift anything heavy. It is not in dispute that
the appellant will not be able to work in the same manner as he
used to prior to the accident. Indisputably, the appellant has
suffered from paraplegia on account of the accident and requires
an attendant throughout the day. According to the claimant, the
cost of keeping the attendant would be Rs. 4,500/- per month. It
is fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. An amount of Rs. 4,32,000/- is
awarded towards the attendant charges. [Para 73, 76][459-D-E;
462-H]
2.7 The accident took place on 18.07.2012. The appellant
is pursuing this litigation for the past almost 10 years. The SLP
before this Court was filed in 2018. It has been four years since
then. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards litigation
expenses. [Para 78, 82][463-B; 465-D]
2.8 For loss of conveyance and special diet, the appellant
is granted up to Rs 50,000/- considering that after the accident at
SIDRAM v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
Kulgod-Gokak Road, the appellant was shifted to Lakeview
Hospital Belgaum wherein he was admitted as an indoor patient
from 18.7.2012 to 6.8.2012 for 19 days, and took treatment for
the injuries suffered by him, and continued to take the treatment
after getting discharged from the hospital as well. Thus,
Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of conveyance and special
diet. [Para 89, 90][467-C-E]
2.9 Pain and suffering would be categorized as a nonpecuniary loss as it is incapable of being arithmetically calculated.
Therefore, when compensation is to be awarded for pain and
suffering, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken
into account including the victim's age, the unusual deprivation
the victim has suffered, the effect thereof on his or her future
life. Considering that the appellant was only 19 years at the time
of the accident and suffered a permanent disability of 45%, he
ought to be awarded compensation under this head. An amount
of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. [Para 93,
96, 98][468-D; 469-F; 469-H]
2.10 A sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of
marriage prospects. [Para 103][470-G]
2.11 An amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded for the loss of
amenities taking into consideration the fact that the appellant
was 19 years old at the time of the accident, and also considering
the nature of injuries suffered by him and the extent of his
disability. [Para 111][472-H; 473-A]
2.12 The total compensation awarded under different headsloss of earning due to disability, loss of earning for 6 months,
medical expenses, future medical expenses, attendant Charges,
litigation charges, loss of conveyance, pain and suffering, marriage
prospects and loss of amenities is 21,78,600/- [Para 112][473-BD]
2.13 The respondent No. 1-insurance company is directed
to pay the appellant-claimant the difference in the compensation
awarded as against the amount of Rs. 9,26,800/- as awarded by
the High Court. The amount awarded by this Court would be
deposited by the respondent No. 1-insurance company within the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
stipulated period after adjusting the amount already deposited.
The rate of interest at the enhanced amount is to be the same
i.e., 6% per annum. [Para 114][473-H; 474-A-B]
Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Limited
(2011) 10 SCC 683; Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar
and Others AIR 2020 SCC 4424 : [2020] SCR 968;
Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5
SCR 1098; Kirti and Another v. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166 - relied on.
Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General
Insurance Company Limited and Another (2022) 7 SCC
738; R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd.
and Others (1995) 1 SCC 551 : [1995] 1 SCR 75; Raj
Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 SCC 343 :
[2010] 13 SCR 179; Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and
Others (2003) 2 SCC 274 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 499;
Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited
and Others (2012) 6 SCC 421 : [2012] 3 SCR 1178;
Jagdish v. Mohan and Others (2018) 4 SCC 571 :
[2018] 3 SCR 20; Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others
(2020) 4 SCC 413 : [2020] 3 SCR 622; Divisional
Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another
(2003) 7 SCC 197 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 14; Anthony
alias Anthony Swamy v. Managing Director, Karnataka
State Road Transport Corporation (2020) 7 SCC 161 :
[2020] 5 SCR 860; Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited
(2014) 2 SCC 735; New India Assurance Company Ltd.
v. Amit Kumar Yadav and Another F.A.O. Nos. 1285 &
1489 of 2008 decided on March 23, 2022; Sanjay
Kumar v. Ashok Kumar and Another (2014) 5 SCC 330;
Ramesh v. Karan Singh & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 6365
of 2022 dated September 16, 2022; Arvind Kumar
Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited and
Another (2010) 10 SCC 254 : [2010] 11 SCR 857;
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
SIDRAM v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100;
Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and Others v. Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation and Another (1999)
1 SCC 90 : [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 684; Laxman alias
Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and Another (2011) 10
SCC 756; Anant son of Sidheshwar Dukre v. Pratap
son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane and Another Civil Appeal
No. 8420 of 2018 dated August 21, 2022; Parminder
Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and
Others (2019) 7 SCC 217 : [2019] 8 SCR 986;
Neerupam Mohan Mathur v. New India Assurance
Company (2013) 14 SCC 15 : [2013] 8 SCR 15;
Nagarajappa v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance
Company Limited (2011) 13 SCC 323 : [2011] 6 SCR
70; Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar and Others (2012)
2 SCC 267 : [2012] 2 SCR 921; Sandeep Khanuja v.
Atul Dande and Another (2017) 3 SCC 351; Kerala
SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176;
Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon and Another
(2022) 8 SCC 489; Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways
(2014) 3 SCC 210 : [2014] 1 SCR 924; New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Gopali and Others
(2012) 12 SCC 198 : [2012] 6 SCR 834; Nizam's
Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka
and Others (2009) 6 SCC 1 : [2009] 9 SCR 313;
Vijaykumar Babulal Modi v. State of Gujarat (Deleted)
& Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 2011 SCC
OnLine Guj 7349; Virendra Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and
Others (2021) ILR 3 All 272; Ibrahim v. Raju and
Others (2011) 10 SCC 634 - referred to.
H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL,
England) - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2022) 7 SCC 738
referred to
Para 13
(2014) 5 SCC 330
referred to
Para 14
[1995] 1 SCR 75
referred to
Para 17
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
411
(2011) 10 SCC 683
relied on
Para 30
[2010] 11 SCR 857
referred to
Para 18
[2010] 13 SCR 179
referred to
Para 18
[2017] 13 SCR 100
referred to
Para 19
[1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 684
referred to
Para 19
[2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 499
referred to
Para 20
(2011) 10 SCC 756
referred to
Para 20
[2012] 3 SCR 1178
referred to
Para 33
[2018] 3 SCR 20
referred to
Para 34
[2019] 8 SCR 986
referred to
Para 35
[2020] 3 SCR 622
referred to
Para 36
[2013] 8 SCR 15
referred to
Para 37
[2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 14
referred to
Para 38
[2020] 5 SCR 860
referred to
Para 42
[2011] 6 SCR 70
referred to
Para 42
(2014) 2 SCC 735
referred to
Para 43, 81
[2012] 2 SCR 921
referred to
Para 44
(2017) 3 SCC 351
referred to
Para 45
[2009] 5 SCR 1098
relied on
Para 53
(1994) 2 SCC 176
referred to
Para 53
(2021) 2 SCC 166
relied on
Para 59
(2022) 8 SCC 489
referred to
Para 67
[2014] 1 SCR 924
referred to
Para 71
[2012] 6 SCR 834
referred to
Para 80
[2009] 9 SCR 313
referred to
Para 95
(2011) 10 SCC 634
referred to
Para 101
[2020] SCR 968
relied on
Para 113
SIDRAM v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8510
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2018 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in MFA No.100867/2014 (MV).
Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Dharm Singh for M/s Nuli & Nuli, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, Shakti K. Pattanaik, Sanjeev
Verma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J. B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned final judgment
and order dated 25th of April, 2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka
(Dharwad Bench) in "Shri Sidram S/o Raju Bhosale v. Shri Siddu
Mahadev Bhosale & Anr." urging various legal grounds and contentions
for further enhancement of compensation in the case of a motor accident
involving the appellant-claimant herein whereby the High Court enhanced
the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Belgaum (for short, 'Tribunal') by Rs. 3,13,800/- to a total of Rs. 9,26,800/
-. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 6,13,000/- under the
various heads along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation of payment.
3. The briefs facts of the case are given hereinunder. The appellantclaimant suffered grievous injuries in a road accident that occurred on
18.07.2012, while he was walking on the left side of the Kulgod-Gokak
road. While the claimant was near the Laxmeshwar crossing, a goods
vehicle bearing registration No. KA-23/9426, being driven in a rash and
negligent manner banged into the appellant- claimant. The appellantclaimant was shifted to a hospital and was treated as an indoor patient
from 18.07.2012 till 06.08.2012. On account of the accident, the appellantclaimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45%. The
appellant-claimant suffered from paraplegia due to the accident. The
appellant- claimant was in the business of selling utensils in different
villages of the district.
4. The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition before the First
Additional Senior Civil Division Judge & MACT, Belgaum at Belgaum
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
413
which was registered as the M.V.C. No. 1786 of 2012. Before the
Tribunal, the appellant- claimant examined himself (PW-1) and also
examined Dr. Anil B. Patil as PW2 in respect of his claim and various
other documents were taken on record as evidence.
5. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which, the
appellant sustained injuries and was awarded pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary damages. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to
the compensation as under:
Towards pain and suffering
:
Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of earning during laid of period
:
Rs. 4,000/-
Loss of earning due to disability
:
Rs.3,24,000/-
Towards Medical expenses
:
Rs. 1,50,000/-
Conveyance, special diet etc
:
Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of amenities in life
:
Rs. 30,000/-
Towards marriage prospects
:
Rs. 20,000/-
Towards future medical expenses
:
Rs. 25,000/-
 Total
:
Rs.6,13,000/-
6. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed an
appeal in the High Court praying for enhancement of the compensation
on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have awarded enhanced
compensation on the basis of the evidence adduced. The contentions of
the appellant will be taken up in detail at a later stage.
7. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9,26,800/-.
The High Court in its impugned order held:
"9. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at
Rs. 5,000/- which is on the lower sipe. The accident is of the
year 2012 and the notional income of the claimant could be
taken at Rs.7,000/- per month considering the nature of
business carried on by him.
10. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to compensation under
the head of loss of future earning as follows: Rs.7,000/- x 12
x 18 x 40% = Rs.6,04,800/.
SIDRAM v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
414
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
11. The compensation awarded under the head of pain and
suffering, medical expenses, conveyance, special diet, etc.,
loss of amenities in life and marriage prospects is just and
proper and same is not disturbed. The claimant who suffered
grievous injury would have suffered loss of earning during
the laid up. The compensation awarded under the head of
pain and suffering, medical expenses, conveyance, special
diet, etc., loss of amenities in life and marriage prospects is
just and proper and same is not disturbed. The claimant who
suffered grievous injury would have suffered loss of earning
during the laid up period for a minimum period of six months.
Therefore, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.42,000/- (Rs. 7,000 x
6). The claimant would be further entitled to litigation
expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
12. With regard to future medical expenses, the claimant has
not stated as to the nature of future treatment required. Hence,
he would not be entitled for any compensation on the head of
future medical expenses. However, it is made clear that if at
all the claimant incurs any expenses towards any surgery or
treatment on account of the injury suffering in the present
motor accident and if he proves the same before the insurer,
the insurer shall indemnify the same.
13. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.9,26,800/- as against Rs.6,13,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
14. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation
under the following heads:
SI. . Particulars
Amount
No.
1.
Pain and suffering
Rs. 40,000/-
2.
Loss of earning during laid-up
Rs.42,000/-
Period for six months
3.
Loss of earning due to disability
Rs.6,04,800/-
4.
Towards medical expenses
Rs.1,50,000/-
5.
Conveyance, special diet etc.
Rs. 20,000/-
6.
Loss of amenities in life
Rs. 30,000/-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
415
7.
Marriage prospects
Rs. 20,000/-
8.
Litigation expenses
Rs. 20,000/-
 Total
Rs. 9,26,800/-
Accordingly, there would be an enhanced compensation
of Rs. 3,13,800/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till date of realization."
8. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the High Court,
the appellant has appealed to this Court urging various contentions in
support of further enhancement of the compensation.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
9. Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, filed his submissions in writing. The submissions are as
under:
10. The accident had occurred on 18.07.2012 when the appellantclaimant was walking on the left side of the Kulgod-Gokak Road,
Karnataka when a goods vehicle bearing No. KA-23/9426 dashed against
the appellant-claimant, whilst being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
In lieu of the same, the appellant-claimant sustained grievous injuries.
The appellant-claimant was admitted to Lake View Hospital from
18.07.2012 to 06.08.2012 and was an indoor patient for 19 days. An
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- had been spent towards his medical expenses.
It was observed that there was a permanent physical disability of 45%
of the whole body as certified by the doctor and further was a functional
disability of 100% as the appellant-claimant is unable to continue with
his vocation and unable to find any work in lieu of the accident.
11. It is submitted that the appellant-claimant was hale, healthy
and aged only 19 years at the time of the accident. The appellant-claimant
being aggrieved, had sought compensation to the tune of
Rs. 25,00,000/- by filing MYC No.1786/20 12 before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal had awarded a meagre sum of Rs.6,13,000/- along with interest
at 6%. Being aggrieved, the appellant-claimant had proceeded to file
M.F.A. No.100867/2014 (MV) before the High Court of Karnataka
(Dharwad Bench). The High Court vide its impugned order has only
marginally increased the compensation payable to the appellant-claimant
from Rs.6,13,000/- to Rs.9,26,800/-. The High Court had considered the
income of the appellant-claimant to be only Rs. 7,000/- as against Rs.
SIDRAM v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
9,000/- which the appellant-claimant was earning through his utensil
business. The physical disability had only been taken as 40% as against
45% as opined by the Doctor. The table showing the heads awarded as
compensation by the High Court and the Tribunal to the appellant-claimant
is as follows:
12. It is submitted that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court
have failed to correctly provide/grant compensation under the head "future
prospects" as mandated by this Court by only taking the salary of the
appellant-claimant to be Rs. 7,000/- and not Rs. 9,000/-. It is submitted
that it had been specifically stated by Dr. Anil B. Patil (PW-2) that the
appellant would require future medical expenses to the tune of Rs.
2,50,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 25,000/-
towards future medical expenses as against Rs. 2,50,000/- as stated by
PW-2. The High Court has not considered the same at all.
13. It is submitted that with regard to conveyance, it ought to be
appreciated that the accident occurred on the Kulgod-Gokak Highway
and the appellant was subsequently transferred to Belgaum for treatment.
Therefore, compensation under the head of conveyance ought to be
granted on the higher side as the appellant was completely disabled and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417
must have received help from family members or friends to get admitted
at the hospital and back and forth which has also been observed in
Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited and Another, (2022) 7 SCC 738. Therefore, it would
be reasonable to award conveyance charges of Rs.50,000/-.
14. It is submitted that this Court in Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok
Kumar and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 330, was pleased to award
compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for loss of marriage prospects
wherein the claimant was earning only a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month.
Therefore, it would be reasonable to award compensation to the tune of
Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of marriage prospects to the appellant-claimant in
the present matter.
15. The appellant suffers from paraplegia because of the accident
and requires an attendant throughout the day and hence, Attendant
charges of Rs.4,500/- per month ought to be awarded to the appellant,
which has not been considered by the Tribunal as well as the High Court.
The appellant is unable to stand, walk or sit and is unable to bend his
body or lift any weights. It is pertinent to point out herein that the appellant
as a consequence of his grievous injuries will not be able to work in the
same manner as he used to prior to the accident and therefore, functional
disability of the appellant ought to be considered as 100%.
16. It is further submitted that the appellant had been operated
upon twice and has undergone a great deal of pain and suffering in lieu
of the accident and has had to give up his vocation as a consequence of
the grievous nature of the injuries sustained. This Court in Ramesh v.
Karan Singh & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 6365 of 2022 dated September
16, 2022 was pleased to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/
- after taking notice of the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by
the Claimant in the said matter and taking into consideration that he had
been operated upon 5 times. In light of the same, it would be reasonable
to award compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellant under the head
of pain and suffering.
17. It is submitted that this Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest
Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (1995) 1 SCC 551, (Para-9) had
categorically stated that in injury cases, compensation ought to be
assessed as Pecuniary Damages i.e the costs incurred by the claimant
for the injury and Special Damages which includes damages for mental
SIDRAM v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
and physical shock, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life and
inconvenience. It may be observed that cumulatively, only a meagre
sum of Rs. 90,000/- has been awarded to the appellant for the same. It
ought to be appreciated that the appellant would not be able to marry as
a consequence of the accident and is forced to live with the pain and
suffering throughout his life as he would require an attendant to care for
him as well. It may be observed that it has been specifically stated that
the appellant is unable to squat or sit cross legged and unable to stand
and walk as well as per the disability certificate. Keeping in mind the
same, it would be reasonable to award compensation of Rs.50,000/-
each to the appellant-claimant under the non-pecuniary heads of loss of
amenities. It is submitted that with regards to litigation expenses, the
appellant has contested the matter right from the point of the Tribunal
upto this Court, in light of the same, it would be reasonable to award
litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant.
18. It is submitted that this Court in Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 683, Arvind Kumar
Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another,
(2010) 10 SCC 254, and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another,
(2011) 1 SCC 343, has categorically held that adequate compensation
ought to be awarded not only for the physical injury and treatment, but
also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and
enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused
due to the accident.
19. It is pertinent to point out herein that the appellant would be
entitled to fair and just compensation in order to place the appellant in
such a position as close to how the appellant was living prior to the
accident as held by this Court in National Insurance Company Limited
v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, (Para-55) and in Raj
Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra)(Para-5). This Court has also held in
Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and Others v. Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 90 (Para-36), that
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') is a beneficial piece
of legislation and hence the object of the Courts ought to be to assist the
injured/deceased person.
20. It is pertinent to point out herein that the claim of the appellant
-claimant before the Tribunal was only Rs. 25,00,000/-. However, it is
submitted that this Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
419
(2003) 2 SCC 274, and in Laxman alias Laxman Mourya v. Divisional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2011)
10 SCC 756, had categorically stated that there is no restriction that the
Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claim
amount.
21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel prayed
that there being merit in his appeal, the same may be allowed and the
amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
NO. 1-INSURANCE COMPANY
22. Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, the learned counsel
appearing for the insurance company has also submitted his submissions
in writing. The same are as under:
23. It is submitted that the present petition is filed by the petitioner
challenging the impugned order whereby the High Court had allowed
the appeal filed by the petitioner and enhanced the compensation from
Rs. 6,13,000/- to Rs. 9,26,800/-. The petitioner by filing the present petition
is seeking further enhancement of the award. It is submitted that the
High Court after considering the evidence on record and also after
considering the MACT award had rightly enhanced the award as claimed
by the petitioner as such there is no scope for any further enhancement
of the amount in the present petition.
24. It is submitted that the High Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence and has taken 40% disability for whole body after considering
the nature of injury suffered and the evidence of treating doctor, which
is 10% more than what has been considered by the Tribunal. The High
Court has rightly assessed the future earning as per the law laid down
by this Court in Anant son of Sidheshwar Dukre v. Pratap son of
Zhamnnappa Lamzane and Another in Civil Appeal No. 8420 of 2018
dated August 21, 2022. The calculation of loss of future earning where
the claimant suffers permanent disability as a result of injuries has been
dealt in the aforementioned judgment in para no. 7.2. Therefore, under
this head there is no scope of enhancement as claimed in the present
petition.
25. It is submitted that the appellant has wrongly claimed
enhancement of the compensation towards the loss of future earnings
during the laid-up period. In fact, the High Court has awarded for loss of
SIDRAM v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
earning during the laid-up period for six months. Whereas as per the law
laid down by this Court in Anant v. Pratap (supra), this Court has held
that the claimant cannot succeed in the claim of actual loss of income. It
was observed by this Court in para No. 7.3 that "The grant of loss of
future income compensates for any further period of time where
income was lost. Actual loss of income can be awarded for the month
in which accident took place." In fact, the High Court had rather
awarded on the higher side under this head i.e. for actual loss income,
which ought to be have been awarded only for the month in which
accident took place.
26. It is submitted that the appellant therein without any evidence
on record is allegedly claiming that the claimant had 100% disability. It is
pertinent to submit here that the appellant had miserably failed to produce
any document before the Tribunal, the High Court or even in this Court
to show that the claimant had 100% disability. The only document relied
upon by appellant as regards to the disability of the claimant is the disability
certificate which shows that total permanent physical disability of 45%
to whole body. No document filed by the appellant is showing that the
claimant has 100% disability. Therefore, the contention made by the
appellant for enhancement of the compensation on the ground of disability
of 100% is nothing but a desire of the claimant to gain sympathy of this
Court to grant further amount as enhancement of the award. The
approach of the appellant is unhealthy and will set a bad precedent if
such pleas are accepted by this Court. In view of the same the present
appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
27. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing
for the insurance company prays that there being no merit in the appeal
filed by the original claimant, the same may be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
28. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that
falls for our consideration is whether the appellant-claimant has made
out any case for further enhancement of the amount of compensation.
POSITION OF LAW
29. The process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science. Perfect
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
421
compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of injury and disability.
As rightly pointed out in H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard, 1958-65
ACJ 504 (HL, England):
"...money cannot renew a physical frame that has been
battered."
30. The principle consistently followed by this court in assessing
motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a
position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general
principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions.
[Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
31. It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases of
permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the
claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income,
amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders
of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts,
taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for
future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in
permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no
justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects
in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent
disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies
altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in
accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case
of the victim's death.
32. This Court has emphasised time and again that "just
compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the
victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of
the accident.