Holding

The appellant was not given just compensation; an additional sum of Rs.3,00,000 is awarded, with interest at 12% per annum from the claim petition date to payment.

Summary

Muthiah Sekhar, a 25‑year‑old lawyer, was injured in a collision between a taxi and a bus owned by Nesamony TPT. Corporation Ltd. He suffered permanent dislocation of the right hip, 60% loss of vision in the left eye and 50% loss of hearing in the left ear, and had to travel to New York for balloon embolisation of a carotico‑cavernous fistula unavailable in India. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,76,000, rejecting his claim for foreign treatment expenses, and the Kerala High Court dismissed his appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s award was inadequate, accepted the disability certificate and the expert’s letter confirming the unavailability of treatment in India, and ordered an additional Rs.3,00,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition to payment.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in view of the appellant's permanent disabilities and loss of future earnings.
Whether expenses incurred for medical treatment abroad can be included in compensation when such treatment is not available in India.
The admissibility and weight of a disability certificate issued by a neurosurgeon for assessing loss of vision and hearing.
Whether interest at the rate of 12% per annum is payable on the enhanced compensation.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal at the admission stage.

Legislation cited

Subjects

motor accident compensationdisability assessmentforeign medical treatmentinterest on compensationMotor Vehicles ActSupreme Court

Judgment

MUTHAIAH SEKHAR A
v.
NESAMONY TPT. CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 1, 1998

·-:-- IK. VENKATASWAMI AND AP. MISRA, JJ.] B

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 :

Motor accident---{;ompensatio11-Quantwn of-Passenger travelling i11
a taxi was hit by a bu.1-He sustained seven i11jwies i11cluding pennanent C
dislocation of 1ight !zip, loss of 60% vision in left eye and loss of 50% heari11g
i11 left cw-At the time of accident he was aged 25years a11d, after practising
as a lal~)'CI" for some time, he had joined ML course-Due to lack of proper
treatment facility in India, he u11dcnvent treatment at New York-Accide11t
Claims Tribunal, after estimating his i1zco111e as Rs. 1,000 per 1iw11th at that
time, awarded a compe11satio11 of Rs. I, 76,00(}-Held, Jn the circumstances D
of the case, the victim 1101 given just compensatio11-Hence, a11 additional
rnm of Rs. 3 laklzs awarded by Supreme Cowt a11d the enhanced amount of
compensation to bear interest @ 12'1r1 p.a. from the date of claim petitio11 till
the date of payment-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The appellant was travelling in a taxi, which was hit by a bus belong- E
ing to the respondent-Corporation. The appellant sustained seven injuries
including permanent dislocation of right_ hip, loss of 60% vision in left eye
and loss of 50% hearing in left ear. At the time of accident the appellant
was aged 25 years and, after practising as a lawyer, he had joined the ML
course. As there was no proper treatment facility in India, the appellant
underwent treatment in New York.
F

The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 5,06,091 as compensation. However, the
Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,76,000 after estimating the
appellant's income as a legal practitioner at that stage to be about Rs.1,000 G
per month. The High Court confirmed the award. Hence this appeal.

Allowing the appeals, this Court

HELD: 1. In the facts of the case, the appellant was not given the just
compensation to which he was entitled. Hence, an additional sum of Rs. 3 H
225
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A lakhs is awarded in addition to that awarded by the Tribunal. This en-
hanced amount of compensation will bear interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. [231-B]

Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF, [i997] 11 SCC 446, relied on.

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13391 of ----: .•
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.90 of the Kerala High
Court in M.F.A. No 712 of 1990.

c WITH

Civil Appeal No. 13385 of 1996.

P.S. Poti and Ms. Malini Poduval for the Appellant.

D A. Mariarputham for the M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co. for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. VENKATASWAMI, J. Civil Appeal No. 13391186:

E Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal at the admission stage, the
appellant, who sustained serious injuries in a motor accident that took
place on 10.8.84, has preferred this appeal.

The appellant along with his mother, brother and sister-in-law were
travelling in a taxi from Nagarcoil to Trivandrum on 10.8.84. A bus,
F belonging to the respondent-Corporation coming from the opposite direc-
tion, dashed against the taxi while trying to overtake a bullock cart, result-
ing in the death of the Driver and the appellant's mother. The other
occupants including the appellant sustained injuries. The appellant moved
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum, claiming a sum of
G Rs.5,06,091 as compensation. At the time of accident, he was aged about
25 years and after practising as a Lawyer for some time, applied for and
secured a seat in the Madras University for pursuing his M.L. course. He
sustained in all seven injuries including dislocation of right hip, head injury
and injury to the left eye and ear. Initially, he was admitted to the Medical
college Hospital, Trivandrum, for treatment and after being discharged
H therefrom, he was admitted again to the Madras General Hospital for
MUTHAIAH SEKHAR v. NESAMONY TPT. CORPN. LID. [K. VENKATASWAMI. J.j 227

further treatment. It was the claim of the appellant that he was to be A
. tr~ted.rfor the left carotid cavernous fistula; a condition which required
the treatment of balloon embolisation. According to the appellant, the said
treatment was not available in India and his brother, who was a practising
Doctor at New York, United States, asked the appellant to go over there

-- for treatment. Accordingly, he went to the United States and had his
treatment there. The Head of the Neurosurgery Department of B
Trivandrum Medical College Hospital gave a Disability Certificate assess- J
ing loss of 60% vision in the left eye and 50% hearing in the left ear. He ~
also opined that dislocation of the right hip was permanent. Bringing all
.
, these factors in his claim petition, he made a claim of Rs.5,06,091.

The Tribunal was of the view that the claim towards the travelling c
expenses to New York and Medical expenses in the Hospital at New York,
cannot be allowed as 'there was no record to show that the facilities were
not available in India for such treatment. The Tribunal after referring to
the Disability Certificate given by the Head of the Neurosurgery Depart-
ment and other factors, awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.1, 76,000. D

Aggrieved by the meager amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Kerala High Court in
M.F.A. No. 712/90. Unfortunately, the appellant's appeal came up for
admission along with the appeals filed by the other injured occupants of E
the taxi and the legal representatives of the deceased person. A Division .
Bench of the Kerala High Court summarily dismissed all the appeals at the
admission stage. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, placing reliance
on the Disability Certificate issued by the Head of the Neurosurgery F
Department and the letter written by a Doctor in New York to the U.S.
Consulate at Madras to enable the appellant to get necessary visa for his
treatment at United States and the oral evidence given by the Doctor, who
gave the Disability Certificate, submitted that the findings of the Division
Bench cannot be supported. According to the learned senior counsel, the G
appellant has discharged the burden to prove his case that the treatment
:, he had in New York was not available in India at that time and there is no
iota of evidence on the side of the respondents to demolish the claim of
the appellant in this regard. In any event, according to the learned senior
counsel, it was not for the respondent to suggest what type of treatment H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A the injured has to undergo. It was further contended that neither the
Tribunal' nor the High Court had any material to disbelieve the evidence
produced by the appellant. In the absence of any positive evidence from
-the side of the respondent-Corporation, it was the contention of the
learned senior counsel for the appellant that the High Court should have
B allowed the compensation as claimed by the appellant.

Contending contrary, learned counsel for the respondent- corpora-
tion submitted that the High Court has correctly appreciated the evidence
and the High Court has factually found that the Award of Rs. l,76,000 was
on the higher side. He also invited our attention to the oral evidence of the
C Doctor, who gave the Disability Certificate.

After going through the Award of the Tribunal and the judgment of
the High Court, we are of the view that the appellant was not given the
just compensation on the facts of the case, to which he was entitled to. The
D Disability Certificate was not totally accepted by the High Court only on
the ground that the DocLor, who gave the Certificate, has no authority to
give such a Disability Certificate in respect of vision in the left eye and loss
of hearing in the left ear. We have perused the evidence of the Doctor,
who gave, the Disability Certificate, and he has asserted in his evidence as
follows:-
E
"Before I issued this certificate Ext. A22 I saw the report of
neurologist of the M.C.H. The respective departments will send
their reports. I referred the patient to opthalmic hospital and ENT
specialist, M.C.H., Trivandrum. ENT must have seen it.
F Audeometry was done to him. I did not examine his vision.
Opthalmologist examined his vision. He had lot of problem. Mainly
Deplopia. Regarding the nature of d~plopea only the Ophthalmic
surgeon can explain. Audiometry was done and a report was given
by ENT department. when I treat a patient, I alone will issue a
Disability Certificate. Other departments will issue reports about
G the treatment made by them. I have not seen any disability certifi-
cate issued by the other departments. As head of the treating unit
the Neurologist can issue disability certificate. There is in 60% loss
of hearing in one ear. With respect to vision also I have seen the
report. You are not competent to issue a disability certificate
H regarding eye and ear (O) Not correct (Ans.) Orthopaedic sur-
MUTHAIAH SEKHAR v. NESAMONY TPT. CORPN. LTD. (K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 229

geons are competent to issue disability certificate in respect of A
every system of the boay on the basi.s of the MC brid scale. His
left hip is affected. He had a damage to optical nerve of the left
side. I mean the 2nd cranial nerve. That was not mentioned in the
.....
\
certificate. When there is a total loss, each of the reasons need not
be mentioned. I say you have not mentioned the reasons for
assessing 50% disability (O). I have stated in the certificate the
B
reasons. I say without getting reports from the other departments
you have issued the certificate (O) No (Answer)."

On a: fair reading of the evidence, we are of the view that the High
Court was not justified in doubting the correctness of the Disability Cer- c
tificate. Further, it is on record that tHe treatm_ent by balloon embolisation
of the fistula was not available in India.

The Assistant Professor Clinical Neurosurgery, New York University
School of Medicine, in his letter addressed to the U.S. Consulate, Madras,
D
has stated thus:-

"Mr. Muthiah Sekhar is a·27-year-old Asian Indian male who was
involved in a major automobile .accident in India in August, 1984.
His mother was killed in this acciden.t and Mr. Muthiah Sekhar
himself sustained multiple injuries. He ·presented to the Govern- E
ment General Hospital in Madras with head injury, decreased
vision and bulging of left eye. Examination revealed markedly
decreased visual acuity, pulsating proptosis and a bruit in the left
eye. A cerebral angiogram clearly showed the presence of a
carotico-tavernous fistula.
F
The modern treatment for this condition is intra-arterial balloon
embolization of the fistula, sparing the carotid artery. This proce-
dure is not available in India. T~e only procedure they could offer
him in Madras was a carotid ligation, which apart from not being
curative, is dangerous and can cause disastrous complications such G
as storke.

I have reviewed all his medical ~ecords and angiograms from
Madras and, strongly feel that he should come to the United States
to have the balloon embolization. I can make all the arrangements
for this procedure to be done at New York University Medical H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Center. The patient's brother, Dr. Muthiah Sukumaran, is a prac-
ticing physician in New York and is willing to bear all expenses.

I would like to request that a visa be issued to him as soon as
possm!e before the patient develops an irreversible complication
such as blindness, stroke, cerebral hemorrhage or even death."
B
This was not given the due importance both by the Tribunal and by
the High Court in rejecting the claim of the appellant for travelling to New
York and expenses incurred for his treatment at New York. As rightly
pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, no attempt was
C made by the Respondent- Corporation to produce evidence oral or
documentary to the effect that the facility was available in India. Even
otherwise, the view taken by the High Court that the appellant never
informed the respondent about his going to New York for treatment and
he cannot burden the Corporation with the expenses for treatment in a
,, foreign country, is not correct. Nothing prevented the injured person from
. D taking the best available medical facilities to recover from the disabilities
caused by the tortfeasor. We have already noticed that the appellant was
2S years old and was a student of M.L. Course at the time of the accident
and he could not complete the M.L. Course because of the accident and
permanent disability he has sustained in the accident. The Tribunal has
E found that he would have earned at least Rs. 1,000 a month as a practioner
in law at the beginning stage.

We can usefully refer at this stage to a recent judgment of this Court
in Shashendra Lahn v. UNICEF & Ors., [1997) 11 SCC 446. In that case, a
F 17 year old boy and a student of B. Com., suffered multiple injuries in a
motor accident which occurred on 6.1.77. He suffered permanent disability
of shortening his right leg by three inches. It was also noticed that the
injured thereafter continued his education and has a good academic career.
The Tribunal in that case awarded a sum of Rs. 33,000 only as against the
claim of Rs. 6, 00,000 . On appeal, the High Court enhanced the amount
G to Rs. 58, 000 . This Court, on further appeal, was of the view that having
regard to the age of the appellant at the time of accident and the prospects
in view of his good academic career, the adverse effect of his permanent
disability as a result of the motor accident on his future prospects, is much·
more than that assessed by the High Court. On that basis, this court
H awarded further sum of Rs. 4 lak~s in addition to that awarded by the High
MUTHAIAH SEKHAR v. NESAMONY TPT. CORPN. LTD. [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.) 231

Court. [Emphasis supplied] A
Applying the above principle to the facts of this case, we find no
difficulty in awarding a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs in addition to that awarded by
the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court This enhanced amount of
compensation will bear interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of
the claim petition till the date of payment. B
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Civil Appeal No. 13385/96:

This appeal is preferred against the order in Review Petition in C
M.F.A. No. 712/90. In view of the disposal of the appeal against the M.F.A.
No. 712/90, this appeal will also stand disposed of accordingly with no
order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeals allowed.
,.