RAMESHversusKARAN SINGH & ANR

110                       [2022]
               SUPREME COURT     18 S.C.R. 110
                              REPORTS                     [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A                                  RAMESH
                                       v.
                           KARAN SINGH & ANR.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 6365 of 2022)
B                           SEPTEMBER 16, 2022
               [M.R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
              Motor Vehicles Act 1988: s.166 – Permanent Disability –
      Appellant-claimant, was a Navy merchant and earning USD 1000
      – He sustained multiple injuries in a vehicular accident, due to
C
      which there was an amputation of the right upper limb below elbow
      and he had to undergo five operations during his prolonged
      hospitalization — Claim for compensation of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- under
      different heads made before MACT – The Tribunal awarded a total
      sum of Rs. 6,68,000/- only – Appeal for enhancement of
D     compensation – High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.
      14,82,000 observing that though claimant’s right hand below elbow
      was amputated resulting in 70 % disability qua right arm, he could
      still earn something and that the Merchant Navy is usually a job for
      six months in a year – Hence instant appeal – Held: High Court
      observed that the claimant can still earn something – However, the
E
      claimant will not be able to do any work in Merchant Navy – High
      Court also observed that in Merchant Navy, usually the job is for
      six months in a year – The said observation is absolutely without
      any basis – No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents on
      that – It cannot be said that the claimant would do nothing for rest
F     of six months – High Court has also not considered the future rise
      in income – Under the circumstances and in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have awarded
      the future economic loss considering the loss of income at least at
      Rs. 30,000/- per month – High Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/-
      only towards pain, shock, and suffering – However, the right hand
G
      below elbow of the claimant was amputated – During prolonged
      hospitalization, he was operated five times – Considering the five
      operations, prolonged hospitalization, and suffering, the amount
      of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the High Court under the head of pain,
      shock, and suffering can be said to be on a lower side – In the facts
H
                                      110
              RAMESH v. KARAN SINGH & ANR.                             111


and circumstances of the case, Rs. 4,00,000/- granted towards pain,    A
shock, and suffering.
      Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. By the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court while awarding the future economic loss has considered
the loss of income at Rs. 18,000/- per month. However, the             B
appellant was serving as Merchant Navy and his salary at the
relevant time was USD 1000. His right hand below elbow was
amputated resulting in 70% disability qua right arm. The High
Court has observed that the claimant can still earn something.
However, the claimant will not be able to do any work in Merchant      C
Navy. The High Court also observed that in Merchant Navy,
usually the job is for six months in a year. The said observation is
absolutely without any basis. No evidence is led on behalf of the
respondents on the aforesaid. It cannot be said that the claimant
would do nothing for rest of six months. The High Court has also
not considered the future rise in income. Under the circumstances      D
and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court
ought to have awarded the future economic loss considering the
loss of income at least at Rs. 30,000/- per month. Therefore, the
total loss comes to Rs. 57,60,000/- (30000x12x16). [Para 5]
[113-D-F]                                                              E
      2. The High Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/- only towards
pain, shock, and suffering. However, it is required to be noted
that the right hand below elbow of the claimant was amputated.
During prolonged hospitalization, he was operated five times.
Looking to the serious injuries, the claimant was required to be       F
shifted to Medical College and Hospital at Rohtak and thereafter
to Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi, where he was remained
admitted from 03.01.1997 to 21.01.1997. Therefore, considering
the five operations, prolonged hospitalization, and suffering, we
are of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the
High Court under the head of pain, shock, and suffering can be         G
said to be on a lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, narrated hereinabove, the claimant shall be entitled to at
least Rs. 4,00,000/- towards pain, shock, and suffering. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is to be
modified accordingly. [Para 5.1][113-G-H; 114-A-B]                     H
112             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6365
      of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Orders dated 16.07.2019 of the High
      Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.83 of 2002.
            Aditya Vashishath, Ms. Neelam Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
B
            Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Adv. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M.R. SHAH, J.
             1. The application for deleting the name of respondent No. 2 herein
C
      is allowed at the risk and responsibility of the appellant herein.
             2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
      Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 83 of 2002, by which, the High
      Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein
D
      – injured – claimant and has enhanced the amount of compensation to
      Rs. 14,82,000/- only, the original claimant has preferred the present appeal.
             3. In a vehicular accident which occurred on 02.01.1997, the
      appellant – original claimant sustained multiple injuries. There was an
      amputation of right upper limb below elbow at upper l/3 rd of fore-arm.
E     During the prolonged hospitalization, the injured – claimant was required
      to undergo five operations. At the time of accident, the appellant was
      getting USD 1000 as a salary in Merchant Navy where he was employed
      at Belgium excluding free food, accommodation, and free air ticket. The
      appellant approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short
F     “Tribunal”) claiming Rs. 1,02,00,000/- for compensation under different
      heads. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,68,000/- under different
      heads including the expenses covering medicine, treatment, special diet,
      pain, shock and suffering and future loss of income. While awarding
      future economic loss, the Tribunal determined and considered the income
      of the injured at Rs. 3,500/- per month. In the appeal preferred by the
G     claimant, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
      enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 6,68,000/- to Rs.
      14,82,000/-. While awarding future economic loss, the High Court has
      though considered the income of the injured at Rs. 36,000/- per month in
      Merchant Navy, Belgium, but has actually considered the loss of income
H
                RAMESH v. KARAN SINGH & ANR.                                    113
                       [M.R. SHAH, J.]

at 50% of the same on the ground that in Merchant Navy, usually the job         A
is for six months in a year and that as per the medical evidence, the
injuries have resulted in 70% disability qua right arm. The High Court
has awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/-
for special diet and Rs. 5,000/- for transportation. Thus, the High Court
has determined and awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,82,000/- towards
                                                                                B
compensation along with 7.5% per annum interest from the date of filing
of claim petition till realization.
      3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order passed by the High Court in determining and awarding only
Rs. 14,82,000/- towards compensation, the original claimant – injured
has preferred the present appeal.                                               C

      4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.
        5. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court while
awarding the future economic loss has considered the loss of income at          D
Rs. 18,000/- per month. However, it is required to be noted that the
appellant was serving as Merchant Navy and his salary at the relevant
time was USD 1000. His right hand below elbow was amputated resulting
in 70% disability qua right arm. The High Court has observed that the
claimant can still earn something. However, it is required to be noted
that the claimant will not be able to do any work in Merchant Navy. The         E
High Court also observed that in Merchant Navy, usually the job is for
six months in a year. The said observation is absolutely without any
basis. No evidence is led on behalf of the respondents on the aforesaid.
It cannot be said that the claimant would do nothing for rest of six months.
The High Court has also not considered the future rise in income. Under         F
the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
High Court ought to have awarded the future economic loss considering
the loss of income at least at Rs. 30,000/- per month. Therefore, the
total loss comes to Rs. 57,60,000/- (30000x12x16).
       5.1 The High Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/- only towards pain,           G
shock, and suffering. However, it is required to be noted that the right
hand below elbow of the claimant was amputated. During prolonged
hospitalization, he was operated five times. Looking to the serious injuries,
the claimant was required to be shifted to Medical College and Hospital
at Rohtak and thereafter to Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi, where
                                                                                H
114              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     he was remained admitted from 03.01.1997 to 21.01.1997. Therefore,
      considering the five operations, prolonged hospitalization, and suffering,
      we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the
      High Court under the head of pain, shock, and suffering can be said to
      be on a lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, narrated
      hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the claimant shall be entitled to
B
      at least Rs. 4,00,000/- towards pain, shock, and suffering. The impugned
      judgment and order passed by the High Court is to be modified
      accordingly.
               6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed
C     by the High Court is modified and it is ordered that the appellant herein
      – injured – claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 62,35,000/-
      with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition
      till realization.
            7. The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
D     The enhanced amount of compensation is to be deposited by the
      respondents with the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks
      from today and on such deposit the same be paid to the original claimant
      – appellant herein by account payee cheque. No costs.

E     Devika Gujral and Anurag Bhaskar                       Appeal partly allowed.
      (Assisted by : Iram Jan, LCRA)




F




G




H