1999 JTR(SC) 463
1999 ACJ 1105 ; 1999 AIR(SC) 2260 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 2301 ; 1999 2 AllCJ 1379 ; 1999 2 AWC 1526 ; 1999 3 CalLT(SC) 30 ; 1999 3 CivLJ 667 ; 1999 3 CLT(SC) 6 ; 1999 DNJ 356 ; 1999 2 ICC 681 ; 1999 ILR(Kar) 4163 ; 1999 2 JT 619 ; 1999 2 PLR(SC) 270 ; 1999 3 RCR(Civ) 134 ; 1999 3 RLW(Raj) 398 ; 1999 2 Scale 479 ; 1999 4 SCC 22 ; 1999 SCC(Cri) 502 ; 1999 2 SCR 518 ; 1999 2 UJ 1142 ; 1999 WBLR 316 ; 1999 KHC 1131 ; 1999 4 Supreme 24
1999(4) Supreme 24
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Ashwani Kumar Mishra -Appellant
versus
P. Muniam Babu & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2158 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12306 of 1998)
Decided on 8-4-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Girdhar G. Upadhyay, Ms. Vinita G. Upadhyay, R.D. Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Advocate.
Act Referred :MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.110, S.140, S.92(c), S.149, S.92(a), S.142, S.171, S.168, S.146, S.110(a), S.141, S.166, S.147, S.173, S.92(b)
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act provisions S.110, S.140, S.92(c), S.149, S.92(a), S.142, S.171, S.168, S.146, S.110(a), S.141, S.166, S.147, S.173, and S.92(b) govern matters pertaining to insurance liabilities, claims for compensation, responsibilities of insurers, and assessment of damages in cases involving road accidents. The present case invokes these statutory provisions to determine the quantum of compensation payable by an insurer to an injured claimant who was found to be permanently disabled due to a road accident while engaged in construction work, where the primary disputes relate to the claimant's employment status, income evidence, and the appropriate multiplier for loss of future earnings.
(B) Key legal principles include the need to assess pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages objectively, applying reasonable multipliers for loss of income, considering the claimant's actual earning capacity and family contribution, and requiring courts to avoid speculation while allowing for hypothetical calculations grounded in evidence and sympathy for the disability suffered.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, aged 23, was involved in a road accident while assisting his father in construction work, resulting in severe spinal injuries and permanent disability. He claimed compensation for medical expenses, attendant care, special diet, and loss of income, asserting a monthly income of Rs. 2,000 and a multiplier of 55 for future loss. The insurer contested employment and income proof, leading to an award by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, subsequent High Court modification, and this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court accepted that the appellant was permanently incapacitated and entitled to compensation for medical care and pain suffering, but found the multiplier for loss of future income to be unduly low. It reasoned that a reasonable multiplier of 16 should apply for loss of expectation of life, and that the claimants income should be assessed at Rs. 2,000 per month, yielding a total compensation of approximately Rs. 5,00,000 inclusive of costs.
Issues:
Whether the appellant was employed at the time of the accident, whether evidence of income was necessary to assess compensation, and what appropriate multiplier and total quantum of compensation should be awarded for permanent disability and loss of future earnings.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be determined objectively by aggregating verified pecuniary losses with hypothetical non-pecuniary damages, applying a reasonable multiplier for future loss of income based on the claimants actual earning capacity and the nature of disability, avoiding pure speculation yet allowing necessary assumptions.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is modified, and the appellant is entitled to Rs. 5,00,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the insurer.
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act provisions S.110, S.140, S.92(c), S.149, S.92(a), S.142, S.171, S.168, S.146, S.110(a), S.141, S.166, S.147, S.173, and S.92(b) govern matters pertaining to insurance liabilities, claims for compensation, responsibilities of insurers, and assessment of damages in cases involving road accidents. The present case invokes these statutory provisions to determine the quantum of compensation payable by an insurer to an injured claimant who was found to be permanently disabled due to a road accident while engaged in construction work, where the primary disputes relate to the claimant's employment status, income evidence, and the appropriate multiplier for loss of future earnings.
(B) Key legal principles include the need to assess pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages objectively, applying reasonable multipliers for loss of income, considering the claimant's actual earning capacity and family contribution, and requiring courts to avoid speculation while allowing for hypothetical calculations grounded in evidence and sympathy for the disability suffered.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, aged 23, was involved in a road accident while assisting his father in construction work, resulting in severe spinal injuries and permanent disability. He claimed compensation for medical expenses, attendant care, special diet, and loss of income, asserting a monthly income of Rs. 2,000 and a multiplier of 55 for future loss. The insurer contested employment and income proof, leading to an award by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, subsequent High Court modification, and this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court accepted that the appellant was permanently incapacitated and entitled to compensation for medical care and pain suffering, but found the multiplier for loss of future income to be unduly low. It reasoned that a reasonable multiplier of 16 should apply for loss of expectation of life, and that the claimants income should be assessed at Rs. 2,000 per month, yielding a total compensation of approximately Rs. 5,00,000 inclusive of costs.
Issues:
Whether the appellant was employed at the time of the accident, whether evidence of income was necessary to assess compensation, and what appropriate multiplier and total quantum of compensation should be awarded for permanent disability and loss of future earnings.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be determined objectively by aggregating verified pecuniary losses with hypothetical non-pecuniary damages, applying a reasonable multiplier for future loss of income based on the claimants actual earning capacity and the nature of disability, avoiding pure speculation yet allowing necessary assumptions.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is modified, and the appellant is entitled to Rs. 5,00,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the insurer.
Judgment
Sethi, J.-Leave granted.
2. Notice was issued to the respondent to show cause why the compensation amount in favour of the appellant be not further enhanced. Respondent No. 3-New India Insurance Company has filed the counter affidavit submitting therein that there is no documentary evidence to show that the appellant was at all employed anywhere at the time of the accident and in the absence of proof regarding his income, the amount of compensation cannot be enhanced. It is submitted that as the appellant had claimed Rs. 2,90,919.15 and was awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest, there is no justification for him to claim enhancement of the compensation amount.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant who was 23 years of age had met with an accident and received severe injuries causing damages to his spinal cord. He remained under treatment for about 90 days and became permanently disabled. He had preferred a claim for Rs. 63,00,919.15 from the owner, driver and the insurer of the vehicle for injuries suffered by him in the motor accident. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) after appreciating the evidence led in the case held that the appellant was travelling as an agent of the construction firm when he met with the accident and awarded him a compensation of Rs. 1,64,037/- with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. Both the appellant and the insurance company preferred appeals before the High Court which were disposed by the impugned judgment holding the appellant entitled to Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation payable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of 10 per cent as awarded by the Tribunal.
4. It is not disputed that the appellant had met with a road accident in which he was seriously injured, underwent operations of his spinal cord/kidney number of times and has become invalid for all practical purposes for the rest of his life. The appellant had claimed that his income was Rs. 2,000/- per month at the time of accident when he was 23 years of age. He had prayed for applying the multiplier of 55 for granting him compensation in lieu of loss of income which he would have earned in the absence of accident in which he has admittedly been totally incapacitated. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that there was no proof of his income and that he was not proved to have been employee of his father in the work where the vehicle was being utilised at the time of the accident. It is however, not disputed that at the time of the accident, the appellant was assisting his father in the construction work of Sunita Construction at Deposit No. 40 in Township of Kailash Nagar for renewing of fencing in front of residential and non-residential quarters providing C.C. coping with glasses for compound walls of Kailash Nagar when he met with the accident. He has claimed his income to be Rs. 2,000/- per month. The appellant, a young man cannot be disputed to be contributing and augmenting the income of his father. Some guess work has to be applied while assessing the loss. This Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd.1 had held:-
“Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.”
It was further held that whenever a tribunal or court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. However all such elements are required to be viewed with objective standards. While assessing damage, the court cannot base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy though conjectures to some extent or inevitable.
5. In the instant case, the appellant has been awarded Rs. 94,037/- as expenses incurred on medical care, Rs. 20,000/- for special diet and expenses for attendant during treatment. For his becoming permanently disabled and paraplegic on account of the injury and damages caused to his spinal cord, the appellant, who admittedly has been held permanently incapacitated has been granted only Rs. 1,00,000/-. We are of the opinion that the appellant was right in claiming his income at Rs. 2,000/- per month while working with his father at the time of the accident and even if we apply the multiplier of 16, he is entitled to the claim of Rs. 3,84,000/- on account of loss of expectation to life besides disappointment, frustration and mental stress particularly when he has to keep a permanent attendant to look after him in his rest of life. Adding this amount to the amount of Rs. 1,14,000/- to which the appellant has rightly been held entitled on account of expenses incurred on medical care and for the pain sufferings during the period of treatment, the appellant is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,98,000/- which we round up to Rs. 5,00,000/- inclusive of costs of litigation. The aforesaid amount is liable to be paid by the respondent-insurance company as was held by the High Court.
6. In the result, this appeal is allowed by modifying the order impugned holding the appellant entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as awarded by the High Court. No further costs.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
***********