Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

F.A.O No. 486 of 2000 and CM. No. 7605 of 2009

Judges

J.R Midha, J.

Acts

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion (J.R. Midha, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

On 30.6.1996 an accident occurred in which respondent No. 1 (the claimant) sustained grievous injuries and was certified to have 90% permanent disability (Exh. PW 3-B). The learned Tribunal originally awarded Rs. 6,67,200 to respondent No. 1 for loss of income but did not award compensation for heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life or future medical treatment. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's award on multiple grounds. The claimant filed cross-objections before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation and led additional medical evidence (including hospital records and testimony of Dr. Suneel Kumar) in support of those cross-objections. The Court heard the matter, considered additional medical evidence from BLK Memorial Hospital (admission and tests in May 2009) and delivered the present judgment enhancing the award.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Tribunal was entitled to convert the claimant's petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to a petition under section 163-A (no-fault compensation) and thereby award lower compensation.
Whether the appellant's contentions (receipt of invalid pension/other employment benefits, multiplier used for future loss computation, low earning quantum, and asserted absence of rash/negligent driving by the government vehicle's driver) justify interfering with the Tribunal's award.
Whether, having regard to the claimant's present condition and additional medical evidence, compensation should be enhanced to include non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering, loss of amenities and expectation of life), future medical/surgical treatment, rehabilitation, attendant charges and special expenses (conveyance and special diet).
Whether the evidence establishes rash and negligent driving by the driver of the government vehicle such that the Tribunal's finding of negligence should be upheld.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The claimant had been prematurely retired on medical grounds and is receiving invalid pension and other benefits (gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund), which the appellant contends should affect the compensation awarded.
The multiplier of 13 applied by the Tribunal (or used in computation) was inappropriate because the claimant allegedly had 12 years of service left with All India Radio.
The amount awarded by the Tribunal was highly excessive considering the claimant's earning of Rs. 3,600.
The driver of the government vehicle was not rash or negligent; he had saved a child's life and in the process hit the pavement. The appellant sought to rely on this to avoid liability or reduce compensation.

Claimant's / Amicus Curiae's Arguments

The claim petition was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the evidence before the Tribunal proved negligence; the Tribunal erred in converting the claim petition suo moto to one under section 163-A (no-fault liability) and awarding lower compensation. The conversion was incorrect and was set aside by this Court.
Additional medical evidence (BLK Memorial Hospital records and testimony of Dr. Suneel Kumar) established the claimant's extremely serious condition (quadriparesis/bedridden) and specific future medical needs, including implantation of a Baclofen Pump and intensive rehabilitation; these should be compensated.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC)	Authority on non-pecuniary damages where appellant became paraplegic with 100% permanent disability; awarded Rs. 1,50,000 under 'pain and suffering' and Rs. 1,50,000 under 'loss of expectation of life' in that case.	The Court followed the approach in R.D. Hattangadi in awarding Rs. 1,50,000 under the head 'pain and suffering' and Rs. 1,50,000 under the head 'loss of expectation of life' (applied by analogy to the claimant's severe disability).
Virender Singh v. Anand Prakash, 2008 ACJ 2519 (Delhi)	Application of R.D. Hattangadi by this Court in a case of 100% permanent disability: awarded Rs. 1,50,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 1,50,000 for loss of expectation of life and Rs. 50,000 for depression and mental stress.	This Court relied on Virender Singh (which followed R.D. Hattangadi) when determining the quantum for non-pecuniary damages and awarded Rs. 1,50,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000 for loss of amenities/expectation of life in the present matter.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)	Principle that future prospects must be taken into account when computing loss of income.	The Court noted that the learned Tribunal had not taken future prospects into consideration as per Sarla Verma; however, because the claimant was drawing some pension, the Court did not interfere with the Tribunal's computation of loss of income in this case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in a stepwise fashion based on the materials before it:

On the appellant's contention regarding pension and other benefits: the Court held that receipt of invalid pension and other employment benefits is not a ground for denying compensation; the claimant remains entitled to compensation under established motor accident compensation principles.
On adequacy of the Tribunal's award: the Court found the Tribunal's award to be grossly inadequate because the Tribunal had awarded only loss of income and had failed to consider other compensatory heads—pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, future medical treatment and future prospects in income computation. The Court emphasized that these heads ought to have been considered.
On negligence: the Court reviewed the evidence and concluded it contradicts the appellant's version. The driver of the government vehicle admitted the accident and that the vehicle hit the patri. The Tribunal had rejected the driver's explanation that the claimant simply fell after entanglement of cycles, noting the severity and multiplicity of spinal fractures. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the government vehicle.
On conversion of claim: the Court accepted the amicus/claimant's submission that the claim was filed under section 166 (negligence-based claim) and that the Tribunal erred in converting it—suo motu—to a section 163-A (no-fault) petition. The Court set aside the Tribunal's conversion and treated the claim petition as one under section 166.
On additional medical evidence and entitlement to future treatment: having admitted the additional medical evidence (BLK Memorial Hospital records and Dr. Suneel Kumar's testimony), the Court accepted the testified treatment requirements and their costs as proven. The Court specifically accepted that the claimant required implantation of a Baclofen Pump (approx. Rs. 8–9 lakhs), intensive rehabilitation, a nursing attendant, and a motorised wheelchair, and awarded amounts based on the doctor's estimates and agreed subsidized rates.
On non-pecuniary damages: following R.D. Hattangadi and Virender Singh, the Court awarded specific sums for pain and suffering and loss of expectation/amenities of life, adopting the precedential approach to quantification in severe permanent disability cases.
On interest and payment mechanism: the Court distinguished between amounts that represent future expenses (for which no pre-judgment interest was awarded because the expense is yet to be incurred) and amounts payable immediately (for which interest was awarded for a specified historical period). The Court directed structured deposit and release mechanisms (fixed deposits, release on presentation of invoices) to secure the funds for treatment and to ensure proper disbursement.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is dismissed; the cross-objections filed by the claimant are allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 6,67,200 to Rs. 22,23,200.

Specific direct effects on the parties (as ordered by the Court):

The Court enhanced compensation and made itemised awards:
- Rs. 1,50,000 towards pain and suffering.
- Rs. 1,50,000 towards loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life.
- Rs. 8,50,000 for implantation of Baclofen Pump.
- Rs. 56,000 for rehabilitation programme for eight weeks (Rs. 1,000 per day).
- Rs. 1,50,000 for a motorised wheelchair.
- Rs. 1,50,000 for nursing attendant charges for two and a half years (at Rs. 5,000 per month).
- Rs. 15,000 for special diet and Rs. 35,000 for conveyance.
Aggregate: the Tribunal's award is enhanced to Rs. 22,23,200; the increase and the final figures and the manner of disbursement are specified in the judgment.
Payment directions:
- The enhanced amount must be deposited with the Registrar General within 30 days.
- Rs. 12,06,000 (for implantation, rehabilitation, nursing attendant and motorised wheelchair) to be paid by cheque in the name of the Registrar General and kept in fixed deposit for six months; released to hospital/supplier on presentation of invoices and subject to specified safeguards (BLK Memorial Hospital to commence treatment upon deposit; if treatment costs exceed Rs. 8,50,000 the hospital will bear the excess and complete treatment).
- For Rs. 3,50,000 (pain and suffering, loss of amenities/expectation, special diet and conveyance) interest at 7.5% is awarded from 3.1.1997 to 31.7.2000, amounting to Rs. 93,889; the resultant sum of Rs. 4,43,889 is to be disbursed partly by placing Rs. 3,00,000 in a fixed deposit (UCO Bank A/c Shyam Lal) with monthly interest payable to the claimant, and the remaining Rs. 1,43,889 to be paid by cheque directly to the claimant.
The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving by the government vehicle's driver and rejected the appellant's explanation of the accident.
The Court appointed and commended the amicus curiae (Mr. Pankaj Seth); fixed his fees at Rs. 15,000 to be paid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority.

Broader implications: The Court applied existing Supreme Court and High Court authorities (R.D. Hattangadi, Virender Singh, Sarla Verma) in quantifying non-pecuniary damages and in principles relating to computation of future loss. The opinion does not purport to set a new precedent beyond applying those established principles; its effects are primarily the enhanced award and the procedural directions for secure disbursement and treatment.

Prepared strictly from the contents of the provided opinion. No information has been added beyond what appears in the opinion text.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Union Of India v. Sham Lal And Others

J.R Midha, J.:— The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 6,67,200 has been awarded to respondent No. 1.

2. The accident dated 30.6.1996 resulted in grievous injuries to the respondent No. 1 and he has become paraplegic with permanent disability certified to be 90 per cent as per Exh. PW 3-B. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6,67,200 for loss of income to the claimant. However, no compensation has been awarded for pain, suffering, loss of amenities of life, future medical treatment, etc. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on various grounds:

(i) The claimant-respondent No. 1 having been prematurely retired on medical grounds is entitled to and is receiving invalid pension apart from benefits of gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, etc. received by him.

(ii) The claimant had 12 years service left with All India Radio and, therefore, the multiplier of 13 is not appropriate.

(iii) The amount awarded is highly excessive considering that the claimant was earning only Rs. 3,600.

(iv) The driver of the government vehicle was not rash and negligent as he saved the precious life of a child and in the process hit the pavement.

3. The appellant's contention that the claimant has been prematurely retired on medical grounds and is receiving invalid pension, is not a ground for denying compensation to him. Claimant is entitled to compensation according to the well settled principles of motor accident compensation.

4. With respect to the contention of the appellant that the amount is excessive, this court is of the view that the compensation is grossly inadequate. The learned Tribunal has only computed the loss of income and has not considered the other heads for award of compensation such as compensation for pain and suffering, compensation for loss of amenities of life, future medical treatment, etc. Even the compensation for loss of income is inadequate as the learned Tribunal has not taken the future prospects of the claimant into consideration.

5. With respect to the contention of the appellant that the driver of the government vehicle was not rash and negligent as he saved the precious life of a child and in the process hit the pavement, the evidence on record is contrary and clearly points out to rashness and negligence of the driver of the government vehicle. In fact, the accident has been admitted by the driver of the government vehicle. It is also admitted that the government vehicle did hit the patri. However, the explanation given that the claimant lost his balance and fell along with other cyclists has been rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal because the injuries are so serious and the claimant's spine got fractured at so many places that it was not possible by simple fall by entanglement of the cycles. The statement of the driver that the government vehicle did not touch the cycle is not supported by the evidence which points out to the contrary. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the government vehicle is upheld.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The claimant has filed cross-objection before this court for enhancement of compensation. The claimant has also led additional evidence in support of the cross-objections.

7. The claimant was admitted in BLK Memorial Hospital, Pusa Road, New Delhi on 13.5.2009 and remained admitted till 15.5.2009 The hospital has carried out various tests including blood test, X-ray cervical spine, MRI cervical spine, MRI dorsal spine and the claimant has been examined by various doctors including Dr. Suneel Kumar, Head of Department, Orthopaedic Surgery who appeared in the witness-box as PW 1 before this court and was cross-examined by learned counsel for the appellant.

8. Report of Dr. Suneel Kumar along with the complete record of the patient in BLK Memorial Hospital has been exhibited as Exh. PW1/1 collectively. According to the statement of Dr. Suneel Kumar and his report, Exh. PW1/1, the claimant is quadriparetic (weakness of limbs). The claimant is unable to sit or stand. He is totally bedridden and dependent upon his attendants even for the most miniscule activity. His activities are restricted in all spheres of life. Dr. Suneel Kumar is of the view that implantation of a device called Baclofen Pump would improve his quality of life and he may even be able to stand up with some support. The cost of the implantation of Baclofen Pump is approximately Rs. 8,00,000 to Rs. 9,00,000. The surgical procedure shall take two days of admission of the claimant in the hospital.

The implantation of the device shall have to be supplemented with intensive rehabilitation programme. The doctor has submitted in his report that the approximate cost of transportation and physiotherapy charges for a period of one year shall be Rs. 3,000 per day. However, on being asked to provide physiotherapy at hospital at subsidized rates, the doctor agreed that the physiotherapy along with hospital charges of bed and meals shall be provided at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per day and rehabilitation programme would require at least 6 to 8 weeks. PW 1 has further stated in his report that the claimant would require attendant which would cost about Rs. 8,000 per month. Considering that the claimant belongs to the poorest strata of the society, full time attendant may not be trained to give him support and physiotherapy and Rs. 8,000 per month is on a higher side, Dr. Suneel Kumar agreed that the hospital shall provide a nursing attendant to visit the claimant six days a week to provide physiotherapy as well as other support required by him at the cost of Rs. 5,000 per month.

9. From the testimony of Dr. Suneel Kumar, PW 1 and Exh. PW1/1, it is proved that the claimant shall require the following treatment in respect of his present condition:

(i) The implantation of Baclofen Pump costing approximately Rs. 8,00,000 to Rs. 9,00,000.

(ii) After surgery, intensive rehabilitation programme costing Rs. 1,000 per day for a period of 6-8 weeks.

(iii) Nursing attendant from the hospital to attend to the claimant six days a week costing Rs. 5,000 per month.

(iv) A motorised wheelchair costing Rs. 1,50,000.

10. The learned amicus curiae submits that the claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the complete evidence was led before the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal on its own without any application from any of the parties and without any basis converted the claim petition to (sic one under) section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded lower compensation. The learned counsel for the claimant further submits that the negligence was duly proved by the statements of the witnesses and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to convert the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which is a provision for no fault liability and can be invoked where the claimants are not able to prove the negligence. The learned Tribunal was in error in converting the claim petition to (sic one under) section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The finding to this effect is, therefore, set aside. The claim petition is treated to be under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

11. The claimant is entitled to non-pecuniary damages including the compensation for pain and suffering and the compensation for loss of amenities of life being unable to walk, run and sit, compensation for expectation of life on account of injury and longevity of the life, disfigurement, discomfort, inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), awarded Rs. 1,50,000 under the head of loss of expectation of life. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this court in the case of Virender Singh v. Anand Prakash, 2008 ACJ 2519 (Delhi), awarded Rs. 1,50,000 towards pain and suffering in respect of the claimant who had suffered 100 per cent permanent disability, Rs. 1,50,000 under the head of loss of expectation of life and Rs. 50,000 towards depression and mental stress in life. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“(30) Non-pecuniary damages include the following:

(i) Pain and suffering.

(ii) Damages for mental and physical shock.

(iii) Loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e, on account of injury the injured may not be able to walk, run or sit, etc.

(iv) Loss of expectation of life, i.e, on account of injury normal longevity of life of the person concerned is shortened.

(v) Disfigurement.

(vi) Discomfort or inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.

(31) Pain and suffering: Pain and suffering compensates victim for physical and mental discomfort caused by the injury. Pain is physical; suffering is emotional. While pain is the physiological response to certain stimuli, suffering is psychological or emotional response to pain.

(32) In the decision reported as R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), because of the accident, the appellant in said case became a paraplegic and suffered 100 per cent permanent disability. Date of accident was 20.5.1980 Appellant in said case had remained hospitalised for a period from 20.5.1980 to 2.8.1980 Analysing the law relating to non-pecuniary damages, compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’.

(33) In the light of R.D Hattangadi's case, 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), noting the period of hospitalisation of injured; the 100 per cent physical disability suffered by him, I award compensation in sum of Rs. 1,50,000 under the head ‘pain and suffering’.

(34) Loss of expectation of life: Compensation for loss of expectation of life compensates victim for the limitation, resulting from the defendant's negligence, on the injured person's ability to participate in and drive pleasure from the normal activities of daily life, or the individual's inability to pursue his talents, recreational interests, hobbies or avocations. In essence, compensation for loss of expectation of life compensates an individual for loss of life and loss of the pleasures of living.

(35) In R.D Hattangadi's case, 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), compensation in sum of Rs. 1,50,000 were awarded under the head ‘loss of expectation of life’.

(36) On the same analogy, I consider it reasonable to award compensation in sum of Rs. 1,50,000 under the head ‘loss of expectation of life’.

(37) Depression and mental stress in life: A person not only suffers injuries on account of the accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident throughout his life and a feeling is developed that he is no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. The appellant is reduced to a vegetable existence. I award compensation in sum of Rs. 50,000 under the said head.”

12. Following the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 is awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000 towards loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life.

13. With respect to the pecuniary damages, a sum of Rs. 8,50,000 is awarded for implantation of Baclofen Pump, Rs. 56,000 is awarded for rehabilitation programme for eight weeks at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per day and Rs. 1,50,000 is awarded for motorised wheelchair.

14. With respect to the requirement of a nursing attendant, Rs. 1,50,000 is awarded for two and a half years calculated at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month. The claimant is 62 years old and considering the life expectancy of 65 years, the attendant charges are allowed for a period of two and a half years.

15. With respect to the compensation for loss of income, the learned Tribunal has not taken the future prospects into consideration as per the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). However, considering that claimant is drawing some pension, computation of loss of income is not being interfered with.

16. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for conveyance and special diet. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, Rs. 15,000 is awarded for special diet and Rs. 35,000 towards conveyance. The total compensation is enhanced by Rs. 15,56,000 (Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 8,50,000 + Rs. 56,000 + Rs. 1,50,000+Rs. 1,50,000+ Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 35,000).

17. The appeal is dismissed and the cross-objections are allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 6,67,200 to Rs. 22,23,200. Rs. 12,06,000 has been awarded to the claimant towards cost of implantation of Baclofen Pump, rehabilitation programme, cost of nursing attendant and for purchase of motorised wheelchair. This expense has yet to be incurred by the claimant and, therefore, no interest is being awarded on this amount. With respect to the remaining amount of Rs. 3,50,000 towards the compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life, compensation for special diet and conveyance, the interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent is awarded from the date of filing of the petition, i.e, 3.1.1997 up to the date of the award by the learned Tribunal on 31.7.2000 No interest is being awarded after the date of the award as the claimant did not file the appeal and the cross-objections have been filed only on 20.5.2009

18. The enhanced amount be deposited with the Registrar General of this court within 30 days. With respect to the compensation of Rs. 12,06,000 towards the installation of Baclofen Pump, rehabilitation programme, nursing attendant and cost of motorised wheelchair, the cheque be prepared in the name of the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, who shall keep the same in fixed deposit in the name of Registrar General A/c Sham Lal for a period of six months with cumulative interest and the said amount shall be released to the concerned hospital and the supplier of the motorised wheelchair upon the invoices being filed with this court. BLK Memorial Hospital is directed to start the treatment of the claimant immediately upon the deposit of the award amount. After the implantation of Baclofen Pump, BLK Memorial Hospital shall raise the invoice in the name of claimant and shall submit to the learned amicus curiae who shall file the same in this court for release of the amount. It is made clear that if the expenditure on treatment exceeds Rs. 8,50,000, BLK Memorial Hospital shall bear the same and shall complete the treatment but shall not leave the treatment in between and shall not claim any further amount from the claimant. With respect to motorised wheelchair, the order be placed with the supplier and the invoice be submitted through the learned amicus curiae whereupon the amount shall be released to the supplier. With respect to the compensation of Rs. 3,50,000 towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life, compensation for special diet and conveyance, the interest awarded from the date of the institution of the claim petition, i.e, 3.1.1997 up to the date of the award, i.e, 31.7.2000 comes to Rs. 93,889. The principal amount of Rs. 3,50,000 along with the interest of Rs. 93,889 comes to Rs. 4,43,889. The cheque of Rs. 3,00,000 be issued in the name of UCO Bank A/c Shyam Lal for being kept in fixed deposit for a period of five years on which monthly interest shall be payable to the claimant which shall be credited in the savings account of the claimant. Since the claimant is 90 per cent disabled and unable to work, UCO Bank shall send the monthly interest personally to the claimant as a special case. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,43,889 be paid by the appellant to the claimant by means of an account payee cheque drawn in the name of the claimant.

19. Vide order dated 23.4.2009, this court appointed Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate as amicus curiae who has very effectively assisted this court in the present case. The learned amicus curiae got the claimant admitted in the BLK Memorial Hospital from 13.5.2009 to 15.5.2009 for tests and medical opinion. The learned amicus curiae also filed the cross-objections on behalf of the claimant and also led the additional evidence of doctors from BLK Memorial Hospital. It is further noted that the learned amicus curiae visited the hospital on 13.5.2009 to meet the concerned doctors and request them to appear as witness. This court records the appreciation for the learned amicus curiae for his assistance. The fees of the learned amicus curiae is fixed at Rs. 15,000 to be paid by Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority.

20. List for compliance on 8.7.2009 Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties and learned amicus curiae under signatures of Court Master.

21. Appeal dismissed; Cross-objections allowed.

Union Of India v. Sham Lal And Others

Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion (J.R. Midha, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Claimant's / Amicus Curiae's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Union Of India v. Sham Lal And Others

Comments