- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lopaben Saumilbhai Bhavnagari v. Sandip Suryakant Shah & 1
Structured Summary of the Opinion (per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi)
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant (original claimant) challenged the judgment and award dated 31.3.2011 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad in MACP No. 487 of 2002. The claim arose from a motor vehicle accident on 13.10.2001 in which the appellant, travelling in a Maruti Fronti from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar, was injured when the vehicle overturned due to rash and negligent driving. She received medical treatment at various hospitals, was initially admitted on the day of the accident and discharged on 25.10.2001, and was again an in-patient from 5.11.2001 to 7.11.2001.
As a result of the injuries, the claimant became totally paraplegic and was assessed as 100% disabled. She alleged that lifelong physiotherapy and medication would be necessary and that she had been earning (as a Life Insurance Agent and by giving tuitions, the latter earning Rs.5,000 per month) prior to the accident. The claimant petitioned the Tribunal for Rs.50 lakhs in compensation.
The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.20,66,300 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment, allocating amounts under separate heads (actual medical expenses Rs.74,900; inevitable expenses Rs.10,24,000; pain, shock and suffering Rs.2,75,000; amenities of life Rs.1,50,000; loss of future income Rs.5,42,400). The claimant appealed seeking enhancement of compensation. The Division Bench admitted the appeal and ultimately heard it and delivered the impugned judgment summarized here.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, particularly under the heads of pain, shock and suffering and loss of future income/amenities of life, was adequate for a claimant rendered totally paraplegic.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding interest on future expenditure (as contended by the Insurance Company).
- What appropriate enhancement, if any, should be made to the Tribunal's award in light of precedent and the claimant's circumstances.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Tribunal erred in not granting adequate compensation for pain, shock and suffering and for loss of future income.
- The claimant was about 32 years old at the time of the accident, married with two children, and had a long married life ahead; the accident rendered her completely bedridden and 100% disabled, making her dependent on others for daily activities.
- She required lifelong physiotherapy and permanent medication, giving rise to recurring future expenditure.
- Prior to the accident she earned regular income as a Life Insurance Agent and additional income of Rs.5,000 per month from tuitions; these sources of income and her domestic assistance to the family had been cut off.
Respondents' (Insurance Company's) Arguments
- The Claims Tribunal erred in awarding interest on future expenditure.
- The Insurance Company's counsel did not seriously contest that there was scope for enhancing compensation towards pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mahadeva Shetty (supra) | Principle that compensation for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life must reckon features like age, marital status and the unusual deprivation suffered by the claimant. | The Court cited this dictum to justify considering the appellant's age, marital status, family responsibilities and deprivation when reassessing compensation for pain and suffering and amenities of life. |
| R.D. Hattangadi (supra) | Principle that special circumstances of the claimant—including age, unusual deprivation suffered and effect on future life—are relevant when awarding compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. | The Court relied on this principle alongside Mahadeva Shetty to guide enhancement of the award for pain, shock, suffering and loss of amenities. |
| Division Bench — First Appeal No. 2071 of 2005 (judgment dated 23.12.2011) | Applied the above principles to enhance compensation in a case of paraplegia of a young person (17 years), awarding Rs.4 lakhs for pain, shock and suffering. | The Court treated that earlier Division Bench decision as persuasive and used its comparative reasoning (age, extent of disability and loss of life expectations) to justify a higher award in the present case. |
| Ibrahim Vs. Raju and others, (2011) 10 SCC 634 | Example of the Supreme Court considerably enhancing awards for serious injuries with life-long treatment needs; instance of Rs.2 lakhs awarded under the head of future enjoyment of life. | The Court referred to this decision to demonstrate higher awards in serious, long-term disabling injuries and to support the conclusion that additional compensation was warranted here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court undertook a comparative and principle-based analysis rather than re-appraising facts de novo. The reasoning proceeded as follows:
- The Court noted an earlier Division Bench decision (First Appeal No. 2071 of 2005, decided 23.12.2011) which had enhanced compensation in a paraplegia case of a 17-year-old and had awarded Rs.4 lakhs for pain, shock and suffering after applying Supreme Court dicta (Mahadeva Shetty and R.D. Hattangadi) emphasizing consideration of age, marital status and deprivation.
- Applying the same legal principles to the present facts, the Court observed that the appellant was about 32 years old, married with young children, entirely dependent due to total paraplegia, and required lifelong treatment and care. The claimant not only lost income but also ceased providing domestic and economic support to the family.
- The Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,75,000 for pain, shock and suffering. The Court held that, given the claimant's personal circumstances and the nature of disability, a higher award was warranted.
- The Court considered other recent Supreme Court authority (Ibrahim v. Raju) demonstrating that higher awards have been granted in serious long-term injury cases, including amounts under the head of future enjoyment of life.
- Rather than separately increasing each head (and then awarding interest on the enhanced heads), the Court opted for a pragmatic lump-sum approach: a global increase of Rs.5,00,000 as a one-time enhancement to meet the ends of justice. This approach also avoided adding further liability for costs or interest on the additional sum.
- Regarding the Insurance Company's contention that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest on future expenses, the Court declined to disturb that part of the Tribunal's award because the appellant had not filed a cross-appeal on that ground.
- The Court fixed payment terms for the additional Rs.5,00,000: if paid by 31 March 2012, no interest would be payable on that additional sum; if payment were delayed beyond that date, simple interest at 9% per annum would run from 1 April 2012 until payment.
- The result was a limited enhancement: the appeal was allowed in part, the award modified as above, parties to bear their own costs, and records remitted to the Trial Court.
Holding and Implications
CORE HOLDING: The First Appeal is ALLOWED IN PART. The respondents are jointly and severally directed to pay an additional lump sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the appellant-claimant, without any liability to pay costs or interest on that additional sum if paid by 31 March 2012.
Consequential and practical implications as provided in the judgment:
- If the additional Rs.5,00,000 is paid by 31 March 2012, no interest or costs shall be payable on that extra amount; if not paid by that date, the appellant is entitled to simple interest at 9% per annum from 1 April 2012 until payment.
- The Tribunal's award is otherwise left intact except as modified by the lump-sum enhancement; the Court declined to disturb the Tribunal's award of interest on future expenses because there was no cross-appeal by the appellant on that point.
- Parties shall bear their own costs. The record and proceedings are remitted to the Trial Court.
The opinion does not purport to establish a new, general precedent beyond applying existing Supreme Court dicta and an earlier Division Bench decision to the facts; the modification is specific to the peculiar facts of this case.
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Appellant-
original claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 31.3.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.487of 2002 insofar as the same is adverse to the appellant.
2. The appellant was travelling from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar on 13.10.2001 in a Maruti Fronti car along with other family members. The vehicle, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver, overturned on the side of the road, resulting in serious injuries to the claimant. She received medical treatment at different places. She was initially admitted in the hospital on the same day, but thereafter discharged on 25.10.2001. She was once again admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient from 5.11.2001 to 7.11.2001.
3. Because of the injuries, the claimant has become totally paraplegic. She is unable to move and is rendered 100% disabled.
4. It is the case of the claimant that the treatment in the form of Physiotherapy and other exercise would continue lifelong, resulting into recurring expenditure for her. She is also required to take medicines permanently. The case of the appellant is that she was a Life Insurance Agent, earning regular income at the time of the accident. She was a regular tax payer. Besides her income from insurance business, she was also giving tuitions to young children and thereby earning additional income of Rs.5,000/- per month.
5. With such facts, the claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.50 lacs from the owner and the Insurance Company of the vehicle involved in the accident.
6. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, granted compensation of Rs.20,66,300/-, to be recovered from the opponents, with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. To come to such a figure, the Claims Tribunal granted different amounts under the following separate heads:-
Head Amount (Rs.) Actual amount spent by claimant as per bills 74,900/-
Inevitable Expenses 10,24,000/-
Pain, Shock and Suffering 2,75,000/-
Amenities of Life 1,50,000/-
Loss of Future Income 5,42,400/-
TOTAL 20,66,300/-
It is this award which the claimant has challenged seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
7. Appearing for the appellant-claimant, learned advocate Shri Shah submitted that the Claims Tribunal committed error in not granting adequate compensation for pain, shock and suffering and also for loss of future income. He submitted that the claimant was aged about 32 years on the date of accident. She was already married and had two children. She had long married life head of her. The tragic accident cut short her enjoyment of life. She is rendered completely bedridden. She needs continuous attention. She is unable to pursue even simple day-to-day activities.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Nanavati for the Insurance Company submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding the interest on the future expenditure. He, however, was not able to contest seriously the case of the claimant that there was some scope for enhancing the compensation towards pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life.
9. This appeal was admitted by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.11.2011. Subsequently, on 13.1.2012, the Division Bench passed the following order:-
It appears that on the point involved in this appeal, this very Court has already disposed of an appeal being First Appeal No. 2071 of 2005 on December 23, 2011. We, therefore, propose to hear out this appeal after a fortnight. We, however, dispense with the necessity of filing formal paper book. Learned advocate for the appellant is directed to prepare informal paper book containing relevant papers used in the trial court and serve the same upon Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company by a week from today. Let the appeal appear on January 27, 2012.
10. It is pursuant to this order that we have heard the learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the appeal. We notice that a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the claim of a young boy, aged about 17 years, who was rendered paraplegia on account of bodily injuries received in vehicular accident. His appeal for enhancement, being First Appeal No.2071 of 2005, came to be disposed of by judgment dated 23.12.2011. Division Bench taking note of the relevant factors and the judgments on the points, was pleased to enhance compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. In particular, Rs.4 lacs was awarded for pain, shock and suffering, making following observations:
"(7) Pain, shock and suffering :-
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1 lac as against the claim of Rs.4 lac so far as pain, shock and suffering is concerned.
As regards the enhancement of the amount of Rs.1 lac awarded under the head 'physical pain and mental shock' is concerned, we would like to be guided by the dictum as explained by the Supreme Court in the the case of Mahadeva Shetty (supra). In Mahadeva Shetty's case (supra):
A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident through 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. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities of life the features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life has to be reckoned.
In R.D.Hattangadi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that:
when compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered and the effect thereof on his future life.
In the present case, the injured was only 17 years old at the time of the accident. It needs no mention that on account of the accident the injured has lost several pleasures of his childhood and adolescence, including the ability to move, run and play freely as other children do. It is on record that he was studying in Standard 10 (Commerce Stream) and had an aptitude for studies. His condition has confined him to the four walls of the house. Adding to this are the physical and mental suffering caused by his medical condition itself, its treatment and the knowledge that he will never be able to lead a normal life. He has no control over his bowel movements and urinary bladder. Even looking after personal hygiene has also become difficult for the injured. There is also the loss of expectation of life, i.e. the normal lifespan of the person being shortened due to the injury, which causes disappointment and stress. As we have discussed earlier that his life expectancy is now 55 years, we must endure this inconvenience, disappointment and suffering for as much as 18 years from now. Keeping in mind the awards under this head to the claimants in the aforementioned cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find it proper to enhance the compensation awarded towards 'physical pain and mental shock', to the appellant to Rs.4 lac."
11. In the present case, we find that the appellant-claimant was a lady, aged about 32 years on the date of accident. She had a family to attend to and young children to look after. As a married woman, she had a long and happy married life ahead of her. Due to the tragic accident, which resulted into injuries, she has been rendered completely dependent on help from others even to pursue her daily routine. In addition to regular medicines and medical attention in the form of physiotherapy and other treatments, she needs to be looked after by others even for her daily routine activities.
12. Before the accident, she was not only looking after her home, young children and her husband, but she was also earning sizable income through her insurance agency and also from some private tuitions. Not only such income would discontinue, her help and support to the family but would also come to an end. On the contrary, she would need support.
13. Instead of a healthy woman and active person, she has been rendered completely dependent on others for her daily pursuits. Considering all these factors, we are of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal should have awarded higher amount than Rs.2,75,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering.
14. In a recent decision, the Apex Court in the case of Ibrahim Vs. Raju and others reported in (2011)10 SCC 634, considerably enhanced compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal and confirmed by High Court in case of injuries to a young boy, aged 18 years, resulting into permanent partial disablement. Due to the serious injuries sustained, resulting in life-long treatment for recurrence of urethral strictures and consequential dysfunction due to fracture of pelvis bone, the Apex Court awarded compensation even higher than what was claimed by the claimant before the Tribunal. The Court was pleased to award sum of Rs.2 lacs under the head of future enjoyment of life.
15. We are of the opinion that instead of enhancing the amount of pain, shock and suffering and future amenities of life and thereafter awarding interest thereon from the date of accident, a lumpsum increase in the compensation by Rs.5 lacs, in all, without any further liability to pay costs or interest thereon, would meet the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant would be satisfied with such further increase in the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
16. Before closing, we may record that though learned counsel for the Insurance Company did point out that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding interest on future expenses, in absence of any cross appeal filed by the appellant, we are not inclined to vary such award of the Claims Tribunal.
17. In the result, the First Appeal is allowed in part. In peculiar facts of the case, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) (without any liability to pay costs or interest thereon) by way of lumpsum increase in favour of the appellant-claimant. If such amount is paid over latest by 31st March 2012, there shall be no interest liability on such further compensation. However, to the extent, the same is delayed beyond the said date, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1st April 2012 till payment.
18. The appeal is allowed to above limited extent. Parties shall bear their own costs. The award of the Tribunal stands modified accordingly. Record and Proceedings may be remitted to the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) Sd/-
(C.L.
SONI, J.) omkar
Alert