SRI. BENSON GEORGEversusRELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& ANR.

                        [2022] 1 S.C.R. 653                             653


                     SRI. BENSON GEORGE                                 A
                                 v.
     RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& ANR.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022)
                       FEBRUARY 25, 2022                                B
         [M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Compensation – In a motor
accident, claimant aged 29 years sustained grievous brain injury –
He underwent brain surgeries – Even after discharge from hospital,
                                                                        C
he remained in coma – At the time of accident, he was working in
bank and earning Rs. 4,59,425 p.a. – Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs. 94.37 lacs along with interest @ 9% P.A. –
Both insurance company and the claimant filed appeals before High
Court – High Court partly allowed the appeal of claimant and
enhanced compensation from Rs. 94.37 lacs to Rs. 1.24 crores,           D
however, reduced interest from 9% to 6% P.A – Claimant still
aggrieved filed instant appeal – Grievance of claimant was that
award of Rs. 2 lacs under the head ‘pain and suffering’ and Rs.
one lac under the head ‘loss of amenities and happiness’ was not
sufficient – Held: Considering the prolonged hospitalization and
                                                                        E
medical treatment and the claimant having undergone multiple
surgeries and still in coma and bedridden, High Court erred in
awarding Rs.2,00,000/- only under the head ‘pain, shock and
suffering’ – Amount of compensation under this head enhanced to
Rs.10,00,000/- – Similarly, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded
by the High Court under the head ‘loss of amenities and happiness’      F
can also be said to be on lower side – No amount can compensate
the loss of amenities and happiness more particularly a person who
is in coma since number of years and is bedridden for the entire life
– In facts and circumstances of the case, if amount of compensation
under the head ‘loss of amenities and happiness’ is enhanced to
                                                                        G
Rs.10,00,000/- from that of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the High
Court, it can be said to be a reasonable amount under the head loss
of amenities and happiness – However, as regards the interest rate,
no interference made.

                                                                        H
                                653
654           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A          Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
              HELD: 1.1 The pain, suffering and trauma suffered by the
      claimant cannot be compensated in terms of the money. However,
      still it will be a solace to award suitable compensation under
      different heads including the pain, shock and suffering, loss of
B     amenities and happiness of life. In the facts and circumstances of
      the case due to the prolonged hospitalization and the multiple
      brain injuries/injuries sustained by the claimant and that he is
      still in coma and is bedridden, if the amount of compensation
      under the head of pain, shock and suffering is enhanced to
      Rs.10,00,000/- it can be said to be a reasonable amount under
C     the head pain, shock and suffering. [Paras 7, 7.1][658-G-H;
      659-A-B]
             1.2 Similarly, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the
      High Court under the head loss of amenities and happiness can
      also be said to be on lower side. No amount can compensate the
D     loss of amenities and happiness more particularly a person who
      is in coma since number of years and is bedridden for the entire
      life. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the amount of
      compensation under the head loss of amenities and happiness is
      enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- from that of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded
E     by the High Court, it can be said to be a reasonable amount under
      the head loss of amenities and happiness. [Para 7.2][659-B-D]
           Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343
           : [2010] 13 SCR 179; Lalan D. alias Lal and Anr. v.
           Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2020) 9 SCC 805
F          – referred to.
            2. Now so far as the impugned judgment and order passed
      by the High Court reducing the amount of interest from 9% to
      6% per annum is concerned, in the peculiar facts and
      circumstances of the case, the same is not required to be
G     interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article
      136 of the Constitution of India. [Para 8.2][660-B-C]
                            Case Law Reference
      [2010] 13 SCR 179            referred to             Para 4.1
      (2020) 9 SCC 805             referred to             Para 4.3
H
 SRI. BENSON GEORGE v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.                      655
                        LTD.& ANR.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1540                  A
of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2020 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA No.3183 of 2018 (MV).
      Rohan Thawani, Karunakar Mahalik, Advs. for the Appellant.
                                                                           B
      Ms. Prerna Mehta, Adv. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
      1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
                                                                           C
and order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru in M.F.A. No.3183 of 2018 (MV), the original claimant has
preferred the present appeal with the prayer to enhance the amount of
compensation.
        2. In a vehicular accident which occurred on 01.01.2013 the
                                                                           D
claimant sustained grievous brain injuries. He underwent brain surgery.
Though he was discharged from the Hospital, he remained in coma even
till the claim petition was filed. At the relevant time the claimant was
working as a Process Supervisor in Deutsche Bank and earning
Rs.4,59,425/- per annum. That at the time of accident he was aged 29
years. That the claimant through his next friend i.e. his mother filed a   E
claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. That the
Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.94,37,300/- on the different heads as under:



                                                                           F




                                                                           G




                                                                           H
656            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A           The learned Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum
      from the date of petition till realization.
             2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
      passed by the learned Tribunal awarding a total sum of Rs.94,37,300/-
      towards the compensation with 9% interest both, the Insurance Company
B     as well as the original claimant preferred appeals before the High Court.
      By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has party
      allowed the appeal preferred by the claimant and has enhanced the
      amount of compensation from 94,37,300/- to Rs.1,24,94,333/- under
      different heads as under:
C




D




E

           The High Court has however, reduced the interest from 9% per
      annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal to the interest at the rate of
      6% per annum.
F            2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court in not awarding full claim as prayed
      for, the original claimant has preferred the present appeal to enhance
      the amount of compensation.
            3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant has
G     vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
      the High Court has committed a grave error in awarding Rs.2,00,000/-
      only under the head pain and suffering and Rs.1,00,000/- only under the
      head of loss of future amenities and happiness.
             3.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing on
H     behalf of the claimant that in the accident the claimant sustained grievous
 SRI. BENSON GEORGE v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.                             657
                LTD.& ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

brain injuries. He was hospitalized from 01.01.2013 to 15.03.2013 in St.          A
John’s Hospital and from 16.03.2013 to 03.05.2013 in Brain & Spine
Centre. He has undergone three major brain operations. It is submitted
that thereafter all throughout he is in coma and is bedridden. It is submitted
therefore that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court
has erred in awarding Rs.2,00,000/- only under the head pain and
                                                                                  B
suffering. Therefore, it is prayed to enhance the amount of compensation
under the head pain and suffering suitably, considering the period of
hospitalization, the grievous brain injuries sustained by the claimant and
that he underwent multiple operations.
       3.2 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
claimant that in the vehicular accident the claimant has suffered 100%            C
disability and is completely bedridden. It is submitted that with this
disability he will have to live a miserable life till his death. He will not be
in a position to enjoy life and therefore the High Court has committed a
grave error in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- only towards loss of amenities
and happiness. It is submitted that the High Court has committed a grave          D
error in reducing the amount of interest from 9% per annum to 6% per
annum.
      Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the present
appeal and to enhance the amount of compensation accordingly.
      4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Ms. Prerna Mehta                 E
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company.
       4.1 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Raj
Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, it is submitted
that as held by this Court, when compensation is awarded by treating
the loss of future earning capacity as 100% the need to award                     F
compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of
expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal
amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or
loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the
award of compensation.                                                            G
       4.2 It is submitted that therefore in the facts and circumstances
of the case no error has been committed by the High Court in awarding
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and happiness.
       4.3 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Insurance Company that decision of this Court in the case of Raj           H
658             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     Kumar (supra) has been subsequently considered and followed by this
      Court in the case of Lalan D. alias Lal and Anr. vs. Oriental
      Insurance Company Limited, (2020) 9 SCC 805.
            4.4 It is also contended by learned counsel for the Insurance
      Company that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court
B     has not committed any error in reducing the interest from 9% per annum
      to 6% per annum.
            5. We have learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
             6. It is not in dispute and it has come on record that in a vehicular
C     accident the claimant sustained grievous brain injuries. That he was
      hospitalized for a number of months. That he undergone MRI, CT scans
      and X-rays. That he sustained right temporal SDH, multiple hemorrhagic
      contusions on temporal lobe, left parieto-occipital lobe, left parietal lobe
      and bilateral frontal lobe, hemorrhagic contusions left thalamic region s/
      o grade II diffuse axonal injury, moderate SAH in right sylvian cistern,
D     moderate diffuse cerebral edema, multiple comminuted and variably
      depressed fracture in left squamous temporal and left parietal bone,
      bilateral occipital bone fracture, right sub-occipital SDH. Finally diagnosed
      that traumatic brain injury sequelae-s/p frontotemporoparietal
      hemicraniectomy and right lower limb deep vein thrombosis.
E            That the claimant underwent multiple surgeries. Left fronto-
      temporoparietal decompressive hemicraniectomy with lax duroplasty done
      on 02.01.2013. He underwent Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrotomy
      under GA. Since the petitioner sustained very severe injuries to the Brain,
      he was shifted to the Brain & Spine Centre, Chemmanakary, Kerala,
F     where he was admitted from 16.03.2013 to 03.05.2013. He underwent
      right side VP shunting (Chabra medium pressure regular) on 25.03.2013
      under GA. That the claimant is still in coma and totally bedridden.
              7. Considering the prolonged hospitalization and medical treatment
      and that the claimant underwent multiple surgeries, we are of the opinion
G     that the High Court has erred in awarding Rs.2,00,000/- only under the
      head pain and suffering. The pain, suffering and trauma suffered by the
      claimant cannot be compensated in terms of the money. However, still it
      will be a solace to award suitable compensation under different heads
      including the pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness
      of life.
H
 SRI. BENSON GEORGE v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.                        659
                LTD.& ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       7.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case due to the prolonged   A
hospitalization and the multiple brain injuries/injuries sustained by the
claimant and that he is still in coma and is bedridden, we are of the
opinion that if the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock
and suffering is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs), it can
be said to be a reasonable amount under the head pain, shock and
                                                                             B
suffering.
       7.2 Similarly, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the High
Court under the head loss of amenities and happiness can also be said to
be on lower side. As observed hereinabove no amount can compensate
the loss of amenities and happiness more particularly a person who is in
coma since number of years and is bedridden for the entire life.             C

        In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion
that if the amount of compensation under the head loss of amenities and
happiness is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from that
of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the High Court, it can be said to be a
reasonable amount under the head loss of amenities and happiness.            D

       8. Now with regard to reliance placed upon the decisions of this
Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and Lalan D. alias Lal (supra),
relied upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance
Company is concerned, we are of the opinion that the amount of
compensation to be awarded under the heads, pain and suffering and           E
loss of amenities and happiness, there cannot be straight jacket formula.
It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it varies
from person to person who has suffered due to the accident. So far as
awarding compensation on the head of pain, shock and suffering is
concerned, multiple factors are required to be considered namely,            F
prolonged hospitalization; the grievous injuries sustained; the operations
underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering.
       8.1 Similarly, loss of amenities and happiness suffered by the
claimant and his family members also depend upon various factors,
including the position of the claimant post-accident and whether, he is in   G
a position to enjoy life and/or happiness which he was enjoying prior to
the accident. To what extent the claimant has lost the amenities in life
and the happiness will depend on the facts of each case.
      Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case
when the claimant is in coma even after a period of eight long years and
                                                                             H
660              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     that he will have to be permanently bedridden during his entire life, as
      observed above the amount of compensation awarded under the head
      loss of amenities and happiness of Rs.1,00,000/- only is unreasonable
      and meagre.
            8.2 Now so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by
B     the High Court reducing the amount of interest from 9% to 6% per
      annum is concerned, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
      the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of
      powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
             9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
C     present appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order
      passed by the High Court is modified to the extent and it is held that the
      original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.1,41,94,333/-
      with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the
      claim petition till realization. The enhanced amount of compensation shall
      be deposited by the respondent – Insurance Company before the learned
D     Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, it shall
      carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. On such deposit, the learned
      Tribunal is hereby directed to ensure that the amount of compensation is
      invested in long term interest bearing deposits in different Nationalized
      Banks or Post Office so that the amount of compensation can be used
E     for the claimant and the same is not flittered away.
            Present appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid
      extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
      order as to costs.

F     Devika Gujral                                          Appeal partly allowed.




G




H