Supreme Court of India
SANJAY VERMAversusHARYANA ROADWAYS
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 61
- Decided
- 29 January 2014
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
For a self‑employed victim with total disability, loss of income must be calculated by adding 50 % to the actual income and applying a multiplier of 17, and the heads of future treatment and pain‑and‑suffering are distinct and must be awarded separately.
Summary
The appellant, a 25‑year‑old self‑employed man, was paralysed below the waist after a bus accident and filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded Rs 3 lakh, which the High Court enhanced to Rs 8,08,052 by applying a multiplier of 15 and clubbing future treatment with pain‑and‑suffering. The Supreme Court held that for a self‑employed victim the actual income must be increased by 50 % and a multiplier of 17 applied, resulting in a loss‑of‑income award of Rs 10,53,150. It further ruled that the heads of future treatment and pain‑and‑suffering are distinct and must be awarded separately (Rs 3 lakh each), upheld the attendant compensation of Rs 2 lakh, maintained the medical‑expenses award, and kept the interest rate at 6 %. The total compensation was fixed at Rs 19,91,702 and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The appropriate method to compute loss of income for a self‑employed accident victim, including the need for any percentage addition to actual income and the correct multiplier under the Second Schedule.
- Whether the multiplier of 15 applied by the High Court is correct or should be higher.
- Whether the compensation heads ‘future treatment’ and ‘pain and suffering’ can be clubbed or must be severed.
- The quantum of compensation appropriate for future treatment and for pain and suffering in a case of total disability.
- The validity of the attendant‑care compensation claimed.
- The appropriate rate of interest on the awarded compensation.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166, s. 168
Subjects
Motor Vehicles Actjust compensationloss of incomemultiplierself‑employedtotal disabilityfuture treatmentpain and sufferingattendant compensationinterest rate
Judgment
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 924
A SANJAY VERMA
V.
HARYANA ROADWAYS
(Civil Appeal No. 5256 of 2008)
JANUARY 29, 2014
8
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. RANJAN GOGOi AND SHIVA
KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act. 1988: s.166 - Just compensation -
C Accident victim suffered paralysis below waist and could not
perform his day to day needs such as latrine and urination
on his own and required one person throughout his life to look
after him - Tribunal awarded Rs. 3 Lacs under the heads ''loss
of income''. "reimbursement of medical expenses" and ''pain
D and suffering" - On appeal, High Court adopted multiplier of
15 and quantified the amount towards "loss of income" at
Rs. 6, 19, 5001- considering that he was self employed person
and at the time of accident his annual income as per /TR was
Rs.41,300; Rs.1,38,5521- on account of "medical expenses"
E and Rs. 50, 0001- "for future treatment" and ''pain and suffering"
- On appeal, held: High court was right in taking annual
income of claimant at Rs.41,300 - Considering the age of the
claimant (25 years) and the fact that he had a steady income,
an addition of 50% to the income that he was earning at the
F time of accident would be justified for determining loss of
income - Further, appropriate multiplier would be 17 - The two
heads of compensation "future treatment" and "pain and
suffering" are distinct and different and cannot be clubbed
together, therefore, the two heads are to be severed -
G Considering that claimant is likely to suffer considerable pain
throughout his life, he is awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,0001- on
account of ''pain and suffering" - As regards "future treatment",
the claim made before the Tribunal for an amount of
H 924
SANJAY VERMA v. HARYANA ROADWAYS 925
Rs.2,00,0001- being the cost of attendant from the date of A
accident till he remains alive is justified - High Court's finding
as regards compensation under the head 'medical expenses'
is maintained - Thus, claimant is awarded enhanced
compensation of Rs.19.91 lacs in all.
B
The appellant-claimant was travelling /
in a bus
belonging to the respondent. The bus met with an
accident as the driver lost control of the bus resulting in
multiple injuries to the appellant including fracture of
spinal cord which resulted in paralysis of his whole body. C
The appellant filed a claim petition before the MACT
claiming compensation of Rs.53 lacs. The Tribunal
awarded Rs.3 Lacs under the heads "loss of income",
"reimbursement of medical expenses" and "pain and
suffering" and interest @ 9% from the date of claim
petition. On appeal, the High Court quantified the amount D
towards "loss of income" at Rs.6, 19,500/-; Rs.1,38,552/-
on account of "medical expenses" and an amount of
Rs.50,000/- "for future treatment" and "pain and
suffering". The High Court, however, reduced the interest
payable to 6% per annum. Aggrieved, the appellant filed E
the instant appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The evidence tendered by the doctor PW-
1 was to the effect that the appellant had become cenl F
percent paralyzed and was unable to perform his day to
day needs such as latrine and urination on his own. A
tube was inserted into his urinary tract along with a bag
which he had to use entire life and there would be no
control over his toilet and urine which he might have G
· been doing on his bed. He would not be able to move
throughout his life due to the paralysis below waist. The
materials on record established that the age of the
claimant at the time of the accident was 25 years and he
• H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.
A was married. The age of his wife was 22 years at that time.
The claimant had one son who was 1112 years of age.
Apart from that the deposition of the claimant himself
(PW-2) showed that after the accident he was not able to
do any work and one person was always needed to look
s after him. [Para 8, 9] [931-H; 932-C-D; 933-B-C]
2. The appellant was a self employed person.
Though he had claimed a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-,
the Income Tax Returns filed by him demonstrated that
he had paid income tax on an annual income of
C Rs.41,300. No fault, therefore, is found in the order of the
High Court which proceeded on the basis that the annual
income of the claimant at the time of the accident was
Rs.41,300/-. [Para 11] [933-E-F]
D 3. A person who is on a fixed salary without provision
for annual increments or who is self-employed the actual
income at the time of death should be taken into account
for determining the loss of income unless there are
extraordinary and exceptional circumstances.
E Undoubtedly, the same principle will apply for
determination of loss of income on account of an
accident resulting in the total disability of the victim as
in the instant case. Therefore, taking into account the age
of the claimant (25 years) and the fact that he had a
steady income, as evidenced by the income-tax returns,
F
an addition of 50% to the income that the claimant was
earning at the time of the accident would be justified.
[Paras 14, 15] [935-E-F; 936-B-C]
Sar/a Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
G Corporation and Anr (2009) 6 SCC 121: 2009 (5) SCR 1098;
Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.
(2012) 6 SCC 421: 2012 (3) SCR 1178; Rajesh and Ors. vs.
Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54; Reshma Kumari and
Ors. vs. Madan Mohan and Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 422: 2009
H (11) SCR 305; Resh ma Kumari and Ors. vs. Madan Mohan
SANJAY VERMA v. HARYANA ROADWAYS 927
and Anr. (2013) 9 sec 65: 2013 (2) SCR 706; Shakti Devi A -
vs. New India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. (2010)
14 sec 575: 2010 (13) SCR 574.- relied on.
4. Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, as
prescribed under the Second Schedule to the Act, the
8
correct multiplier in the instant case cannot be 15 as held
by the High Court. The adoption of the multiplier of 17
would be appropriate. Accordingly, taking into account
the addition to the income and the higher multiplier the
total amount of compensation payable to the claimant
under the head "loss of income" is Rs. 10,53, 150/- (Rs. C
41300 + Rs. 20650= Rs. 61,950 x 17). The finding of the
High Court as regards the compensation under the head
'medical expenses is maintained. [paras 16, 17] [936-C-
E, F]
D
5. The two heads of compensation "future
treatment" and "pain and suffering" are distinct and
different and cannot be clubbed together. The two heads
are to be severed which have Ileen clubbed together by
the High Court. In so far as "future treatment" is E
concerned the claimant will be required to take treatment
from time to time even to maintain the present condition
of his health. In fact, the claimant in his deposition has
stated that he is undergoing treatment at the Apollo
Hospital at Delhi. In the facts of the instant case, grant of F
full compensation, as claimed in the claim petition i.e.
Rs.3,00,000/- under the head '.'future treatment", would
meet the ends of justice. The claimant had claimed an
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- under the head "pain and
suffering and mental agony". Considering the injuries G
sustained by the claimant which had left him paralyzed
for life and the evidence of the doctor PW-1 to the effect
that the claimant is likely to suffer considerable pain
throughout his life, the claimant should be awarded a
further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of "pain and
H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.
A suffering". The monetary compensation for pain and
suffering is at best a palliative, the correct dose of which,
in the last analysis, will have to be determined on a case
to case basis. [Paras 18, 19] [936-H; 937-A-F]
6. In the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident
8
Claim Tribunal the claimant has prayed for an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- being the cost of attendant from the date of
accident till he remains alive. The claimant in his
deposition had stated that "he needs one person to be
with him all the time". The said statement of the claimant
C was duly supported by the evidence of PW-1 who has
described the medical condition of the claimant in detail.
Thus, the claim made on this count was justified and the
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the claimant under the
aforesaid head should be awarded in full. However, in
D view of the enhancement the rate of interest awarded by
the High Court i.e. 6% from the date of the application is
not modified. [paras 20, 22] [937-F-H; 938-A-B, F-G]
Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343:
E 2010 (13 ) SCR 179; Sanjay Batham vs. Munna/a/ Parihar
and Ors. (2011) 10 SCC 665: 2012 AIR 459; Nagappa vs.
Gurudayal Singh and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 274: 2002 (4) Suppl.
SCR 499 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
F
2009 (5) SCR 1098 Relied on Para 11
2012 (3) SCR 1178 Relied on Para 11
2009 (11) SCR 305 Relied on Para 12
G 2013 (2) SCR 706 Relied on Para 13
2010 (13) SCR 574 Relied on Para 14
2010 (13) SCR 179 Relied on Para 18
H 2012 AIR 459 Relied on Para 18
SANJAY VERMA v. HARYANA ROADWAYS 929
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 499 Relied on Para 18 A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5256 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2006 of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in B
- appeal from order No. 121 of 2006.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the
Appellant.
Narender Hooda, AAG, Dr. Monika Gusain, Sano D.,
c
Chaitali Y. Dhingra, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. This quantum appeal is by the D
claimant seeking further enhancement of the compensation
awarded by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital by its
Order dated 27.03.2006.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present E
adjudication may be noticed at the outset.
On 12.08.1998 the appellant-claimant was travelling from
Ambala to Kurukshetra in a bus belonging to the Haryana
Roadways and bearing registration No. HR-07PA-0197. On the
way the driver of the bus lost control over the vehicle resulting F
in an accident in the course of which the claimant suffered
multiple injuries. He was initially treated in the civil hospital
Pehwa and thereafter transferred to the PG IMER, Chandigarh
on 14.08.1998. The appellant underwent surgery on 16.09.1998
and eventually he was released from the hospital and referred G
to the Rehabilitation Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Aligarh.
According to the claimant, apart from other injuries, he had
suffered a fracture of the spinal cord resulting in paralysis of
his whole body. In these circumstances the claimant filed an
application before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal claiming H
•
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.
A compensation of a total sum of Rs. 53,00,000/- under different
heads enumerated below:
(i) Pecuniary loss Rs. 24,00,000.00
(ii) Expenditure incurred in Rs. 2,00,000.00
B
treatment till now
(iii) Expenses which shall be Rs. 3,00,000.00
incurred in future in treatment
c (iv) Cost of attendant from the Rs. 2,00,000.00
date of accident till he remains
alive
(v) Passage and diet money Rs. 2,00,000.00
D
(vi) Pain and suffering and mental Rs. 20,00,000.00
agony
Total Rs.53,00,000.00
E 3. The learned Tribunal by its Award dated 12.06.2000
held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the bus and that the claimant is entitled to
compensation. The total amount due to the claimant was
quantified at Rs. 3,00,000/- under the heads "Loss of Income",
F "reimbursement of medical expenses" and "pain and suffering".
The learned Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9%
from 24.08.1999 i.e. the date of filing of the claim application
till date of payment.
4. Aggrieved, the claimant filed an appeal before the High
G Court which enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,08,052/-. The
High Court quantified the amount due to the claimant towards
"loss of income" at Rs.6, 19,500/-; Rs.1,38,552/- on account of
"medical expenses" and an amount of Rs.50,000/- "for future
treatment" and "pain and suffering". The High Court, however,
H reduced the interest payable to 6% per annum from the date
SANJAY VERMA v. HARYANA ROADWAYS 931
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
of the filing of the application. Aggrieved, this appeal has been A
filed.
5. We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for
the appellant-claimant and Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel
for the respondent.
B
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that
in computing the amount due to the appellant on account of loss
of income, future prospects of increase of income had not been
taken into account by the High Court; the multiplier adopted by
the courts below is 15 whereas the correct multiplier should C
have been 18. In so far as the amount awarded for "future
treatment" and "pain and suffering" is concerned, learned
counsel has submitted that not only the amount of Rs.50,000/-
- is grossly inadequate but High Court has committed an error
in clubbing the two heads together for award of compensation. D
In this regard the learned counsel has drawn the attention of
the Court to the amounts claimed in the claim petition under
the aforesaid two heads, as already noticed hereinabove. It is
submitted by the learned counsel that the amount of
compensation is liable to be enhanced. E
7. Controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of
the appellant, Dr. Monika Gusain learned counsel for the
respondent-Haryana Roadways has submitted that the
enhancement made by the High Court to the extent of over
F
Rs.5,00,000/- is more than an adequate measure of the "just
compensation" that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
for short the "Act") contemplate. It is also the submission of the
learned counsel for the respondent that in awarding the
enhanced amount the High Court has taken into account all the
relevant circumstances for due computation of the amount of G
compensation payable under the Act.
8. Before proceeding any further it would be appropriate
to take note of the evidence tendered by PW-1, Dr. Shailendra
Kumar Mishra, who was examined in the case on behalf of the H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.
A claimant. The relevant part of the evidence of PW-1 is extracted
below:
"........... Medical Board granted 80% disability of Sanjay
Verma during the course of examination. Today I re-
examined Mr. Sanjay Verma in the Court, at the time of
B
issuance of certificate, it was the opinion that his condition
may improve, but even after such a long duration his
condition has deteriorated, in place of improvement.
Today he has become cent percent paralyzed. Now
c Sanjay Verma is unable to perform his day to day needs
such as latrine and urination could not be done of his own.
A tube has been inserted into his urinary tract along with
a bag which he has to use entire life. There will be no
control over.his toilet and urine which he might have been
D doing on his bed.
He will not be able to move throughout his life due
to the paralysis below waist and he is now not been able
to do any work. The Spinal chord will be pressurized due
to the facture of back bone and he will have to bear the
E
pain throughout his life. Sanjay Verma will not be able to
lead his normal life and will have remain in the same
condition throughout his life. Due to his laying position he
will be effected by bed sores which will be excessive
painful. Due to lack of urination in normal course his kidney
F may be damaged and this possibility will always remain."
" ......... At the time of issuance of handicapped certificate
I had also given 100% disability certificate but thinking that
he might improve, I had given a certificate 80% disability.
G The cutting over the certificate No.16 G has been done by
me which bears my signature. This cutting was also done
at the time of issuance of the certificate. As per the
prescribed standard, at the time when patient was
examined by the medical board, he was also suffering from
H the total paralysis and 100% disability but because
SANJAY VERMA v. HARYANA ROADWAYS 933
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
patient's toe was having slight movement, therefore, it was A
unanimously decided that for the time being his disability
is 80%."
9. It is also established by the materials on record that the
age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 25 years
B
and he was married. The age of his wife was 22 years and at
the time of the accident the claimant had one son who was 1Y:i
years of age. Apart from the above, from the deposition of the
claimant himself (PW-2) it transpires that after the accident he
is not able to do any work and "one person is always needed
to look after him".
c ' ;
10. Having noticed the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Shailendra
Kumar Mishra and the other facts and circumstances of the
case we may now proceed to determine as to whether the
compensation awarded by the High Court under the different D
heads noticed above is just and fair compensation within the
meaning of Section 168 of the Act.
11. The appellant was a self employed person. Though he
had claimed a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, the Income Tax E
Returns filed by him demonstrate that he had paid income tax
on an annual income of Rs.41,300/-. No fault, therefore, can be
,found in the order of the High Court which proceeds on the
basis that the annual income of the claimant at the time of the
accident was Rs.41,300/-. Though in Sar/a Verma (Smt.) and
F
Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another1 this
Court had held that in case of a self employed pefson, unless
there are special and exceptional circumstances, the annual
income at the time of death is to be taken into account, a
Coordinate Bench in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd. and Others2 has taken a different view which is G
to the following effect:
1. (2009)6SCC121.
2. (2012) 6 sec 421. H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.
A "14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale
for the observation made in para 24 of the judgment in
Sarla Verma case that where the deceased was self-
employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for
annual increment, etc., the courts will usually take only the
B actual income at the time of death and a departure from
this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional
cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will
be na"ive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income
of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on
c a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc.,
would remain the same throughout his life."
12. The view taken in Santosh Devi (supra) has been
reiterated by a Bench of three Judges in Rajesh and Others
vs. Rajbir Singh and Others3 by holding as follows :
D
"8. Since. the Court in Santosh Devi case actually intended
to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as
laid down in Sarla Verma case and to make it applicable
also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it
E is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups
is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age.
In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons
with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below
40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual
F income of the deceased while computing future prospects.
Needless to say that the actual income should be income
alter paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case
the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
9. In Sarla Verma case, it has been stated that in the case
G of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having
regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed
or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of
sup~rannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just
H ,3. c2013) s sec 54.
SANJAY VERMA v. HARYANA ROADWAYS 935
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.)
and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case A
where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60
years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair
and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition
thereafter."
B
~13. Certain parallel developments will now have to be taken
note of. In Reshma Kumari and Others vs. Madan Mohan and
Another4, a two Judge Bench of this Court while considering
the following questions took the view that the issue(s) needed
resolution by a larger Bench
c
"(1) Whether the multiplier specified in the Second
Schedule appended to the Act should be scrupulously
applied in all the cases?
(2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the Act 0
provides for any criterion, particularly as regards
determination of future prospects?"
14. Answering the above reference a three Judge Bench
of this Court in Reshma Kumari and Ors. vs. Madan Mohan
and Anr. 5 reiterated the view taken in Sar/a Verma (supra) to E
the effect that in respect of a person who was on a fixed salary
without provision for annual increments or who was self-
employed the actual income at the time of death should be
taken into account for determining the loss of income unless
there are extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Though F
the expression "exceptional and extraordinary circumstances"
is not capable of any precise definition, in Shakti Devi vs. New
India Insurance Company Limited and Another there is a
practical application of the aforesaid principle. The near
certainty of the regular employment of the deceased in a G
government department following the retirement of his father
was held to be a valid ground to compute the loss of income
4. (2009) 13 sec 422.
5. (2013) 9 sec 65 (para 36)
6. (2010) 14 sec 575. H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.
A by taking into account the possible future earnings. The said
loss of income, accordingly, was quantified at double the
amount that the deceased was earning at the time of his death.
15. Undoubtedly, the same principle will apply for
determination of loss of income on account of an accident
8
resulting ill the total disability of the victim as in the present
case. Therefore, taking into account the age of the claimant (25
years) and the fact that he had a steady income, as evidenced
by the income-tax returns, we are of the view that an addition
of 50% to the income that the claimant was earning at the time
C of the accident would be justified.
16. Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, as held in Sar/a
Verma (supra) (para 42) or as prescribed under the Second
Schedule to the Act, the correct multiplier in the present case
D cannot be 15 as held by the High Court. We are of the view
that the adoption of the multiplier of 17 would be appropriate.
Accordingly, taking into account the addition to the income and
the higher multiplier the total amount of compensation payable
to the claimant under the head "loss of income" is Rs.
E 10,53, 150/- (Rs. 41300 + Rs. 20650= Rs. 61,950 x 17).
17. In so far as the medical expenses is concerned as the
awarded amount of Rs.1,38,552/- has been found payable on
the basis of the bills/vouchers etc. brought on record by the
claimant we will have no occasion to cause any alteration of
F the amount of compensation payable under the head "medical
expenses". Accordingly; the finding of the High Court in this
regard is maintained.
18. This will bring us to the grievance of the appellant-
G claimant with regard to award of compensation of Rs.
50,000/- under the head "future treatment" and "pain and
suffering". In view of the decisions of this Court in Raj Kumar
vs. Ajay Kumar and Another7 and Sanjay Batham vs.
H 7. (2011) 1 sec 343.
SANJAY VERMA v. HARYANA ROADWAYS 937
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
Munnalal Parihar and Others8 there can be no manner of doubt A
that the above two heads of compensation are distinct and
different and cannot be clubbed together. We will, therefore,
have to severe the two heads which have been clubbed
together by the High Court.
B
In so far as "future. treatment" is concerned we have no
doubt that the claimant will be required to take treatment from
time to time even to maintain the present condition of his health.
In fact, the claimant in his deposition has stated that he is
undergoing treatment at the Apollo Hospital at Delhi. Though it
is not beyond our powers to award compensation beyond what C
has been claimed [Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and others9],
in the facts of the present case we are of the view that the grant
of full compensation, as claimed in the claim petition i.e.
Rs.3,00,000/- under the head "future treatment", would meet the
ends of justice. We, therefore, order accordingly. D
19. The claimant had claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/
- under the head "pain and suffering and mental agony".
Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant which had
left him paralyzed for life and the evidence of PW-1 to the effect
that the claimant is likely to suffer considerable pain throughout E
his life, we are of the view that the claimant should be awarded
a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of "pain and
suffering". We must, however, acknowledge that monetary
compensation for pain and suffering is at best a palliative, the
correct dose of which, in the last analysis, will have to be F
determined on a case to case basis.
20. In the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal the claimant has prayed for an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- being the cost of attendant from the date of
accident till he remains alive. The claimant in his deposition had G
stated that "he needs one person to be with him all the time".
The aforesaid statement of the claimant is duly supported by
the evidence of PW-1 who has described the medical condition
•'
a. (2011) 1 sec 343.
9. (2003) 2 sec 274.
H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.
A of the claimant in detail. From the aforesaid materials, we are
satisfied that the claim made on this count is justified and the
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the claimant under the
aforesaid head should be awarded in full. We order
accordingly.
B
21. In view of the discussions that have preceded, we hold
that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation as set
out in the table below:
SI. Head Amt. as per Amt. as
c No. High Court per this Cour
(in Rs.) (in Rs.)
(i) Loss of Income 6, 19,500.00 10,53, 150.00
D (ii) Medical Expenses 1,38,552.00 1,38,552.00
(iii) Future Treatment 3,00,000.00
(iv) Pain and suffering and 50,000.00 3,00,000.00
mental agony
E
(v) Cost of attendant from 2,00,000.00
the date of accident
till he remains alive
F Total= 8,08,052.00 19,91,702.00
22. In view of the enhancement made by us, we do not
consider it necessary to modify the rate of interest awarded by
the High Court i.e. 6% from the date of the application i.e.
G 24.08.1999 to the date of payment which will also be payable
on the enhanced amount of compensation.
23. The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed as
indicated above.
H D.G. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor Vehicles Act"Sign in to search