Supreme Court of India
SMT. V. SUDHAversusP. GANAPATHI BHAT & ANR.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 311
- Decided
- 6 May 2013
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be just and include full and adequate restoration of the claimant, requiring the inclusion of the corroborated future medical expenses.
Summary
The appellant, a 36‑year‑old woman, suffered grievous injuries to her left leg and forearm when a motorcycle driven by the first respondent collided with her. She claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, citing loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses for a femoral head excision and bipolar hemi‑arthroplasty estimated at over Rs.90,000. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs.1,94,350, which the Karnataka High Court enhanced to Rs.2,65,000 but granted only Rs.15,000 for future medical expenses. The Supreme Court held that the award must be "just" and fully restore the claimant, accepting the orthopaedic surgeon's evidence and adding Rs.85,000 to cover the unaccounted future medical costs, bringing the total to Rs.3,50,000 with interest. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the insurance company was directed to pay the increased amount.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 must include adequate provision for future medical expenses as evidenced by the treating orthopaedic surgeon.
- Whether the High Court correctly assessed the permanent disability and loss of earnings in determining the just compensation.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 168, s. 173
Subjects
Motor Vehicles ActCompensationFuture medical expensesPersonal injuryPermanent disabilityLoss of earningsMotor Accident Claims TribunalJust compensation
Judgment
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 1093
SMT. V. SUDHA A
V.
P. GANAPATHI BHAT & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4340 of 2013)
MAY 6, 2013
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss.168 & 173 - Just
Compensation - Grant of- Towards future medical expenses
- Appellant, aged about 36 years, hit by motorcycle driven C
by respondent no. 1 - Admitted in Hospital, and treated by
PW2, Orthopaedic Surgeon - Serious physical impairment
in left leg of appellant - Claim petition by appellant for
compensation of Rs.3,50,0001- - MACT awarded amount of
Rs.1,94,3501- with interest@ 8% p.a from the date of petition D
- High Court enhanced the award to Rs.2,65,0001- - Plea of
appellant that future medical expenses and necessary
treatment were not considered adequately by the High Court
- Appellant claimed that she needed to undergo hip
replacement surgery which could cost Rs.2 lakhs - Held: E
Tribunal is required to determine the amount of compensation
'which appears to it to be just' - Compensation should, to the
extent possible fully and adequately restore the claimant to
the position prior to the accident - On facts, High Court
awarded only Rs.15,0001- towards·future medical expenses- F
It lost sight of the statement of PW2 that to minimize persistent
disablement, the appellant needed to undergo femoral head
excision and Bipolar Hemi-arthoplasty which would cost more
than Rs.90,0001- - Corroborative evidence given by PW2
accepted, and amount as reflected in his evidence added - F
This would add an amount of Rs. 75, 0001- to the
compensation awarded by the High Court which takes it to a
figure of Rs. 3, 40, 0001 - Further, since, PW2 said that the
expenses could be more than Rs. 90, 0001- but did not specify
1093 H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.
A how much would be that amount, further amount of Rs.10,0001
- added to make it Rs.3,50,0001- and thus fully allow the claim
of the appellant.
The appellant, aged about 36 years sustained
8 grievous injuries in a road accident when a motorcycle
driven by respondent no.1 came in a rash and negligent
manner at a high speed and dashed against her. The
motorcycle was insured with respondent no.2-National
Insurance Company. The appellant was admitted in
Hospital, where she was treated by PW2, Orthopaedic
C Surgeon. PW2 opined that there was serious physical
impairment in the left leg of the appellant. Referring to the
future treatment which was expected for the appellant,
PW2 stated that to minimize the persistent disablement,
the appellant needed to undergo femoral head excision
D and Bipolar Hemi-arthoplasty which would cost more
than Rs.90,000/-.
The appellant filed petition claiming compensation of
Rs.3,50,000/-. Though the appellant had claimed her
E monthly income in the range of Rs.6000/- to Rs.7000/- but
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal took it as Rs.3000/-
and awarded an amount of Rs.1,94,350/- with interest @
8% per annum from the date of petition. On appeal, the
High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to
F Rs.2,65,000/-.
In the instant appeal, the appellant submitted that the
future medical expenses and necessary treatment were
not considered adequately by the High Court. The
appellant claimed that she needed to undergo hip
G replacement surgery which could cost Rs.2 lakhs.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 1. Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle
H Act, the Tribunal passes its award requires the Tribunal
V. SUDHA v. P. GANAPATHI BHAT 1095
to determine the amount of compensation 'which A
appears to it to be just'. The provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that the compensation should, to the extent
possible fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. [Para 13] [1101-D-E; 1101- B
G-H; 1102-A]
1.2. In the present case, the evidence of the doctor
tendered in the Tribunal stated that the future treatment
would cost more than Rs.90,000/-. This corroborating C
evidence has not been contravented. The High Court
however awarded only an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards
future medical expenses. It lost sight of the statement of
the doctor that to minimize the persistent disablement the
appellant needed to undergo femoral head excision and
Bipolar Hemi-arthoplasty which would cost more than D
Rs,90,000/-. In view of the same, the corroborative
evidence given by the doctor is accepted, and the amount
as reflected in the doctor's evidence is added. This
would add the remaining amount of Rs.75,000/- to the
compensation awarded by the High Court which takes it E
to a figure of Rs.3,40,000/. Since, the doctor has said that
the expenses could be more than Rs.90,000/- but has not
specified how much would be that amount, the remaining
amount of Rs.10,000/- is added to make it Rs.3,50,000/-
and thus fully allow the claim of the appellant. [Paras 11, F
14] [1100-F-G; 1103-B-E]
3. The claim petition filed by the appellant stand
decreed at Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of the petition as awarded by the Tribunal G
(MACT). The respondent No.2 insurance company is
directed to pay the amount as now added with interest
at 8% as above. [Para 15] [1103-G]
R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1995
(1) SCC 551: 1995 (1) SCR 75; Arvind Kumar Vs. New India H
1
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R.
A Insurance 2010 (10) SCC 254: 2010 (11) SCR 857; Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar 2011 (1) SCC 343: 2010 (13) SCR
179 and Kavita Vs. Deepak 2012 (8) sec 604 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
B 1995 (1) SCR 75 relied on Para 13
2010 (11) SCR 857 relied on Para 13
2010 (13) SCR 179 relied on Para 13
2012 (8) sec 604 relied on Para 14
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4340 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.02.2011 of the
D High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA No. 3356 of
2009.
Kiran Suri, Nakibur Rahman Barbhuiya for the Appellant.
Parmanand Gaur for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H.L. GOKHALE J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge the
F judgment and order dated 1.2.2011 rendered by a Single
Judge of the Karnataka High Court in MFA No.3356 of 2009
(MV), whereby the learned Single Judge modified the award
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("MACT" for
short) Bangalore dated 7.2.2009 in M.V.G. No.7724 of 2007.
G The High Court by .the impugned judgmeht and order has
enhanced the compensation payable to the appellant for the
accidental injury suffered by her, though not fully meeting her
requirement, and ~ence this appeal by Special Leave.
H
V. SUDHA v. P. GANAPATHI BHAT 1097
[H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
Facts leading to this appeal are as follows:- A
3. The appellant then aged about 36 years sustained
grievous injuries on 11.9.2007 in a road accident which
occurred at Mill Road Junction, Cottonpete Main Road,
Bangalore. The appellant claims to be doing the business of B
selling saaris and on that date when she was proceeding on
that road at about 3.30 pm, a motorcycle driven by the
respondent no.1 bearing registration no.KA-02-ET-8786 came
in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed
against her. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and was
admitted in Srinivasa Hospital, Bangalore where she was C
treated by Dr. Avinash s/o B. Parthosarthi, Orthopaedic
Surgeon.
4. The appellant was treated for the following injuries:-
(i) Fracture of distal end of left radius (forearm bone) D
(ii) Fracture of left neck of femur - (hip bone)
(iii) Abrasions over left elbow
The wound certificate issued by the doctor stated that injury no.1 E
and 2 above were grievous in nature.
'
5. As per the medical record the appellant had to be
operated for 'close reduction and annulated screw fixation of
fractured neck of femur'. 'Close reduction and B/E POP cast
was applied for fractured lower end of left radius'. After the F
discharge from the hospital she continued to suffer pain in left
forearm and left hip, and found difficulty in walking. She suffered
for inability to stand with full weight in left lower limb, and
needed crutches to walk. She could not squat and sit cross
legged, had great difficulty in climbing stairs, and could not G
stand for longer duration.
6. The appellant filed the above referred motor accident
claim petition bearing MVC No.7724 of 2007 and claimed the
compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. The respondent no.2-National H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.
A Insurance Company with which the motorcycle was insured,
filed its written statement and produced the insurance policy
which showed that the motorcycle was insured with it on the
date of the accident. Respondent no.1 did not file any written
statement. The MACT framed two issues, firstly whether the
s appellant proved that she has sustained grievous injuries in the
road accident on that date due to the rash and negligent act of
the rider of the concerned motorcycle. The second issue framed
was whether the appellant was entitled for compensation, and
if so what amount and from whom. The appellant filed her
c evidence by affidavit and supported her claim with the affidavit
of above referred Dr. Avinash dated 3.12.2008.
7. While deciding the first issue, the MACT considered the
statement of the appellant in her affidavit about the occurrence
of the accident. The Court noted the contents of the FIR, and
D the chargesheet filed in the Magistrate's Court. The rider of the
motorcycle did not file the written statement, nor did he step
into the witness box. The Tribunal was therefore, constrained
to draw the adverse inference that the respondent No. 1 was
responsible for the accident, and that the accident was caused
E by his rash and negligent driving.
8. Turning to the issue no.2, the MACT considered the
evidence produced by the appellant by way of her affidavit, as
well as the evidence through the affidavit of Dr. Avinash (PW2)
F dated 3.12.2008. Dr. Avinash placed on record as to how the
appellant was admitted to Srinivasa Hospital, and the treatment
given to her. He pointed out that after her discharge from the
hospital she continued to come to the hospital with complaints
of pain in left forearm and left hip, difficulty in walking, inability
G to stand with full weight, restriction of the movement, needing
the crutches to walk and not being able to sit down with cross
legs or to squat. He opined that there was serious physical
impairment in her left leg. Its mobility component as well as the
stability component had been seriously eroded. Its mobility
component was eroded by 16.3% and stability component was
H eroded by 30%. The doctor assessed the permanent disability
V. SUDHA v. P. GANAPATHI BHAT 1099
[H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
to the left lower limb at 52%, and in relation to the whole body A
at 17.3%. In his affidavit, the doctor referred to the future
treatment which was expected for the appellant. He stated that
to minimize the persistent disablement, she needed to undergo
femoral head excision and Bipolar Hemi-arthoplasty which
would cost more than Rs ..90,000/-. B
9. The appellant had claimed her monthly income in the
range of Rs.6000 to Rs.7000 but the MACT took it as Rs.3000/
- and arrived at annual income of Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal
awarded an amount of Rs.1,94,350/- with interest @ 8% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing the C
amount in Court with advocate fee fixed at Rs.500/-. The
amount of compensation was arrived at in the following
manner:-
1) Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
D
2) Loss of future income & disability Rs.81,000/-
3) Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-
4) Loss of expectation of life Rs.15,000/-
5) Medical Expenses Rs.38,346/-
E
6) Travelling expenses Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.1,94,350/-
10. When the appeal filed by the appellant under Section F
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act for short) was
heard by the High Court, it came to the conclusion that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the loss of
earning capacity and future loss of earning was on the lower
side. The Court noted that the Tribunal had not awarded G
compensation towards loss of earning, attendants, nourishment
and food charges as well as for future medical expenses. The
High Court, therefore, modified the award rendered by the
. MACT and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- in the
following manner:- H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.
A "1) Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
2) Medical Expenses Rs.39,000/-
3) Loss of earning during laid up
Period (Rs.3000 x 6) Rs.18,000/-
B
4) Loss of amenities Rs.40,000/-
5) Travelling expenses Rs.10,000/-
6) Attendant & nourishing food Rs.5,000/-
c
7) Loss of earning capacity &
Future loss of earning
(Rs.3000 x 12 x 15 x 0.20) Rs.1,08,000/-
JD 8) Future medical expenditure Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,65,000/-"
11. The learned counsel for the appellant criticised the
E judgment of the High Court principally for accepting the
permanent physical disability of the appellant at 17.3% only, and
for not considering the supporting medical evidence for future
expenses. It was contended that the permanent physical
disability was 52%. However, when we see the evidence of the
F doctor, it is seen that the disability to left lower limb is 52% but
the disability to the whole body is 17.3%. However, as far as
the award of Rs.15000/- for future medical expenses is
concerned, as can be seen the High Court has lost sight of the
statement of the doctor that to minimize the persistent
G disablement the appellant needed to undergo femoral head
excision and Bipolar Hemi-arthoplasty which. would cost more
than Rs.90,000/-.
12. When this special leave petition came for consideration
H a notice was issued on the prayer of condonation of delay as
V. SUDHA v. P. GANAPATHI BHAT 1101
[H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
also on merits of the appeal. The notice has been served on A
the respondents. Ms. Kiran Suri has appeared for appellant and
Mr. Parmanand Gaur has appeared for the insurance company.
Ms. Suri appearing for the appellant has submitted that the
future medical expenses and necessary treatment have not
been considered adequately by the High Court. In fact now the B
appellant claims that she needs to undergo hip replacement
surgery which could cost Rs.2 lakhs. She has produced a
certificate of a consulting orthopedic surgeon of a health centre
dated 14.7.2011. (We may however note that the certificate is
issued on a date which is even subsequent to the decision of c
the High Court, and it does not contain the address of the
concerned health centre). The counsel for the insurance
company has submitted that the compensation has to be in
proportion to the injury suffered and not in excess.
13. We have considered the submissions of both the D
counsel. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act under which the
Tribunal passes its award requires the Tribunal to determine
the amount of compensation 'which appears to it to be just'.
While considering the claim of a injured retired Judge we may.
note that in R.O Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. E
reported in 1995 (1) SCC 551 this Court has observed that the
determination of compensation involves some hypothetical
consideration linked with the nature of the disability, but these
factors are required to be considered in an objective manner.
In Arvind Kumar Vs. New India Insurance reported in 201 O F
(10) sec 254, this Court was concerned with the 70%
permanent disability suffered by a final year engineering
student, and the Court observed that the whole idea in granting
the compensation is to put the claimant in the same position
as he was in so far as money can. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay G
Kumar reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, this Court observed that
the provision of M.V. Act makes it clear that the award must
be just, which means that the compensation should, to the
extent possible fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R.
A position prior to the accident. With respect to the heads of
compensation, the court observed:-
"The heads under which compensation is awarded
in personal injury cases are the following:
B Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
c (ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
o (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
E
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
F
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will
G be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only
in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical
evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that
compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)
(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, future medical
H
V. SUDHA v. P. GANAPATHI BHAT 1103
[H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of A
marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
14. In the present case, the claim petition filed by the
appellant claimed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, the Tribunal
awarded Rs.1,94,350/- which was enhanced by the High Court B
to Rs.2,65,000/-. The evidence of the doctor tendered in the
Tribunal on 3.12.2008 stated that the future treatment would cost
more than Rs.90,000/-. This corroborating evidence has not
been contravented. The High Court however awarded only an
amount of Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses. In C
view of the dicta in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra} we
accept the corroborative evidence given by the doctor, and add
the amount as reflected in the doctor's evidence. A similar view
has been taken by a Bench of this Court recently in Civil Appeal
No. 5945 of 2012 Kavita Vs. Deepak, decided on 22.8.2012
to which one of us (G.S. Singhvi J} was party. This would add D
the remaining amount of Rs.75,000/- to the compensation
awarded by the High Court which takes it to a figure of
Rs.3,40,000/. Since, the doctor has said that the expenses
could be more than Rs.90,000/- but has not specified how much
would be that amount, we add the remaining amount of E
Rs.10,000/- to make it Rs.3,50,000/- and thus fully allow the
claim of the appellant. The amount of Rs.85,000/- thus added,
with interest at 8% from the date of the petition (as originally
awarded} will give her an added amount in the range of Rs.
1,25,000/. That will meet her requirement as placed before the F
MACT in her claim petition in its entirety.
15. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The claim petition
filed by the appellant will stand decreed at Rs.3,50,000/- with
interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition as G
awarded by the MACT. The respondent No.2 insurance
company is directed to pay the amount as now added with
interest at 8% as above within 8 weeks from today.
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
H
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