2002 JTR(SC) 476
2002 ACJ 852 ; 2002 AIR(SC) 1813 ; 2002 AIR(SCW) 1785 ; 2002 3 ALD(SC) 82 ; 2002 47 AllLR 544 ; 2002 2 AllMR(SC) 986 ; 2002 2 AndhWR(SC) 438 ; 2002 2 AWC 1304 ; 2002 3 BBCJ(SC) 56 ; 2002 2 BLJR 1028 ; 2002 3 CivLJ 29 ; 2002 DNJ 408 ; 2002 1 JCR(SC) 107 ; 2002 2 JCR(SC) 107 ; 2002 3 JLJR(SC) 63 ; 2002 4 JT 8 ; 2002 3 PLJR(SC) 207 ; 2002 2 RCR(Civ) 596 ; 2002 3 Scale 396 ; 2002 4 SCC 337 ; 2002 SCC(Cri) 801 ; 2002 1 WBLR 762 ; 2002 1 WLC 348 ; 2002 KHC 1236 ; 2002 3 Supreme 241 ; 2002 6 Supreme 23
2002(3) Supreme 241
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
D.P.Mohapatra & P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.
Kapil Kumar -Appellant
versus
Kudrat Ali & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2667 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17031 of 1999)
Decided on 12-4-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.K. Maheshwari, Advocate.
For the Respondents : R.D. Upadhyay, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Though the High Court did realise the need to enhance compensation to a minor victim as a result of grievous injury caused to his, right hand under the head of loss of earning capacity on account of permanent partial disability, the apex court felt that the extent of enhancement by High Court for Rs. 5000/- is marginal and thus enhanced by Rs. 20000/- more taking inter alia 2nd Schedule as guiding factor.
Act Referred :MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : Sch.ii, S.163(a)
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act, as referenced in Schedule II and Section 163(a), provides the statutory framework for determining compensation in cases involving injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents. This case falls within the scope of this legislation, as the injury was sustained due to an accident involving a bus that was insured, thereby triggering the liability and compensation provisions under the Act.
(B) Key legal principles include the assessment of compensation for disability, pain and suffering, and travel expenses. The law emphasizes that compensation for permanent partial disability cannot be solely calculated as a percentage loss of earning capacity, but must also account for long-term impacts on education and future prospects. Enhancement of compensation awards is permissible where the initial amount is deemed inadequate.
Facts of the case:
A nine-year-old minor was injured in a bus accident on 5.11.1994, resulting in fractures to three bones of the right hand and requiring surgery. The injury caused permanent partial disability, assessed at 20 per cent, with restricted movement and pain. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 25,000, which the High Court enhanced to Rs. 35,000. The Supreme Court allowed a letters patent appeal to enhance the compensation further.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts enhancement was found to be inadequate. The disability and its impact on earning capacity and life prospects warranted a higher compensation amount. The court emphasized the need to move beyond a marginal increase and consider a structured assessment, such as the table in the Second Schedule, to determine fair compensation.
Issues:
The central issue was whether the compensation awarded by the High Court was adequate given the nature and gravity of the injury and its long-term effects on the minor.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compensation for grievous injuries causing permanent disability must reflect the true impact on the victims life, including educational and earning prospects, and cannot be determined merely on a percentage basis. Adequate enhancement is necessary to address future hardships.
Result:
The appeal was partly allowed, with compensation enhanced to Rs. 50,000, inclusive of prior awards, with interest as specified by the High Court.
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act, as referenced in Schedule II and Section 163(a), provides the statutory framework for determining compensation in cases involving injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents. This case falls within the scope of this legislation, as the injury was sustained due to an accident involving a bus that was insured, thereby triggering the liability and compensation provisions under the Act.
(B) Key legal principles include the assessment of compensation for disability, pain and suffering, and travel expenses. The law emphasizes that compensation for permanent partial disability cannot be solely calculated as a percentage loss of earning capacity, but must also account for long-term impacts on education and future prospects. Enhancement of compensation awards is permissible where the initial amount is deemed inadequate.
Facts of the case:
A nine-year-old minor was injured in a bus accident on 5.11.1994, resulting in fractures to three bones of the right hand and requiring surgery. The injury caused permanent partial disability, assessed at 20 per cent, with restricted movement and pain. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 25,000, which the High Court enhanced to Rs. 35,000. The Supreme Court allowed a letters patent appeal to enhance the compensation further.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts enhancement was found to be inadequate. The disability and its impact on earning capacity and life prospects warranted a higher compensation amount. The court emphasized the need to move beyond a marginal increase and consider a structured assessment, such as the table in the Second Schedule, to determine fair compensation.
Issues:
The central issue was whether the compensation awarded by the High Court was adequate given the nature and gravity of the injury and its long-term effects on the minor.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compensation for grievous injuries causing permanent disability must reflect the true impact on the victims life, including educational and earning prospects, and cannot be determined merely on a percentage basis. Adequate enhancement is necessary to address future hardships.
Result:
The appeal was partly allowed, with compensation enhanced to Rs. 50,000, inclusive of prior awards, with interest as specified by the High Court.
JUDGMENT
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-Leave granted.
2. In this appeal by Special leave, the only question that is canvassed before us is about the adequacy of compensation awarded by High Court to the appellant - a minor, who was injured in a bus accident on 5.11.1994. The bus belonged to the second respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. At the time of the accident the appellant - a student was aged nine years. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ratlam, awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition. On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 35,000/-. A letters Patent Appeal filed against that order, was summarily dismissed by the impugned order dated 8.7.1999. The amount of compensation awarded by the High Court under different heads is as follows :-
On account of disability suffered by the victim as a result of grievous injury caused to his right hand Rs. 20,000/- (increased by Rs. 5,000/-). For pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- (increased by Rs. 1,500/-).
Travel and stay expenses of the victim and his attendant for going to Baroda for treatment Rs. 5,000/-.
3. It is contended that the compensation awarded under the first head is too low having regard to the nature and gravity of injury. The evidence of medical experts (PWs 3 to 5) discloses that three bones of the appellant were fractured and surgery had to be performed. According to PW 5, an orthopaedic expert, appellant s right hand became irregular in shape and its movement became restrained and he cannot lift heavy articles with the right hand. The normal movement will be painful. However, the disability sustained was assessed at 20 per cent. As rightly observed by the High Court, the loss of earning capacity on account of permanent partial disability suffered by the appellant cannot be calculated in terms of percentage only. It will have serious repercussions on his studies and prospects of earning. He will have to face other handicaps in life. Though the High Court did realise the need to enhance the compensation, we feel that the extent of enhancement is still inadequate. The increase of Rs. 5,000/- is only marginal. Taking inter alia the table in the 2nd Schedule as guiding factor, we are of the view that the compensation on account of disability incurred by the appellant should be enhanced by Rs.20,000/- more; that means, he will get Rs. 40,000/- instead of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the High Court under the first head. In respect of other items, the award as modified by the High Court remains undisturbed. In all, the appellant shall get Rs. 50,000/-. This amount should carry interest at the rate and from the period specified by the High Court. The other directions in the award of the Tribunal shall stand.
4. Thus the appeal is partly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeal partly allowed.
*************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Kapil Kumar v. Kudrat Ali & Ors., 2002(3) Supreme 241 :
00031