Subulaxmi v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation And Another

Dipak Misra, J.— Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appellant as claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srivilliputhur (for short “the Tribunal”) forming the subject-matter of MCOP No. 244 of 1999, putting forth a claim of Rs 6,50,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. Her claim petition was tried along with the petition preferred by one Mrs Muthammal, the applicant in MCOP No. 245 of 1999.

2. The facts which are essential to be exposited are that on 13-3-1998, the appellant claimant, aged about 30 years, a match industry worker while travelling in a bus bearing registration number TN 59 N 0912 belonging to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division (V), Respondent 2 before the Tribunal, met with an accident with another bus bearing registration number TN 59 N 0912 belonging to Madurai Division (I) of the said Corporation, Respondent 1 therein. The accident occurred because of careless and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. In the accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries which eventually resulted in the amputation of the left leg below the knee and abrasion in right shoulder and later amputation of the right foot.

3. It was averred that the appellant was earning a sum of Rs 1500 per month at the time of the accident and remained in the hospital for a period of five-and-a-half months. Computing the amount expended, pain and suffering, incapacity to have any future income and the deprivation of other amenities of life and future comforts she claimed a sum of Rs 6,50,000 as compensation. The Tribunal granted Rs 2,00,000 as compensation by award dated 22-10-2002 and fastened the liability on both the respondents. It is necessary to state here that the Tribunal had awarded Rs 86,000 towards permanent disability assessing the same at 86%, Rs 14,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs 66,000 on the head of loss of future income, Rs 10,000 for medical expenses, Rs 15,000 towards extra nourishment, Rs 5000 for loss of income during the treatment period and Rs 4000 towards transport charges.

4. Being grieved by the award, the Corporation preferred CMA No. 2964 of 2003 and the claimant preferred Cross-Objection (MD) No. 45 of 2008 for enhancement of the quantum. The High Court, while computing the amount of compensation, did not grant any amount for permanent disability but enhanced the future income to Rs 1,15,000 and added Rs 75,000 for replacement of artificial limb and for future medical expenses. It also granted Rs 10,000 for loss of amenities and Rs 10,000 towards attendant charges. On certain heads it also marginally enhanced the amount as a consequence of which the amounts stood enhanced to Rs 2,75,000. It is apt to mention here that the High Court came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled for compensation for loss of earning capacity due to disability and both were to be in compartment. It also did not grant interest on the enhanced sum. In the ultimate eventuate the High Court vide its judgment dated 14-7-2010 rejected the appeal filed by Respondent 1 and allowed the cross-objection in part. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

5. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts as have been adumbrated are not in dispute. Therefore, first we shall advert to the issue whether the High Court was justified in awarding compensation on a singular head relating to permanent disability and loss of future earning. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 274, after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh (1990) 3 SCC 723 and B. Kothandapani v. T.N State Transport Corpn. Ltd. (2011) 6 SCC 420, this Court expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one head relates to the impairment of person's capacity and the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 10 SCC 756, 2012 ACJ 191, wherein it has been laid down thus:

“15. The ratio of the abovenoted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, loss of earning and the victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.”

Thus, the view expressed by the High Court on this score is not sustainable.

6. Be it noted, the High Court has granted Rs 20,000 for pain and suffering and Rs 10,000 for loss of amenities. In this context, we may profitably refer to Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 10 SCC 683, wherein this Court after referring to the pronouncements in R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422, Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 has laid down as under: (Govind Yadav case (2011) 10 SCC 683)

“18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.”

Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state whether in the said case, the compensation awarded to the claimant victim was just and reasonable or was he entitled to enhanced compensation under certain heads, namely: (Govind Yadav case (2011) 10 SCC 683)

(i) Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of leg;

(ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability;

(iii) Future medical expenses;

(iv) Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg;

(v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage; and

(vi) Loss of expectation of life.

7. It is seemly to state that in the said case, the Tribunal had awarded Rs 2,56,800 and the High Court had enhanced the same to Rs 3,06,000. This Court considering various aspects granted Rs 4,53,600 in lieu of loss of earning, Rs 2,00,000 towards future treatment, Rs 1,50,000 for pain, suffering and trauma and Rs 1,50,000 towards loss of amenity and enjoyment of life and thereby determined the total amount to Rs 9,53,600. While determining the said sum, the Bench observed as follows: (Govind Yadav case (2011) 10 SCC 683)

“25. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was meagre. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the tribunals and the courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation.

26. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs 1,50,000 in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg.

27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also meagre. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of his life with one artificial leg. The appellant can be expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like a normal human being and will not be able to enjoy life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs 1,50,000 for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.”

8. We have reproduced from the said decision in Govind Yadav case (2011) 10 SCC 683 in extenso, as the Court has dwelled upon the fundamental concept of just compensation regard being had to the value of life and limb in our country. Needless to say, the approach in such matters has to be liberal as well as a balanced one.

9. In the case at hand, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs 86,000 towards the permanent disability. The High Court has deleted it. The said deletion as per our above discussion is impermissible. In our considered opinion regard being had to the nature of injury suffered and further taking note of the date of accident, a sum of Rs 1,00,000 on this head would be appropriate and, accordingly, we so determine.

10*. Presently, we shall proceed to compute the loss of earning capacity. The claimant was earning Rs 1500 per month and thereby Rs 18,000 per annum. As she has suffered 86% permanent disability, the future earning may be computed at 14% less and accordingly it is estimated that the multiplicand should be Rs 15,480 per annum. At the time of accident, she was 30 years of age, and hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable, as has been held in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. Thus, the loss of future earning by multiplying the multiplicand of Rs 15,480 by a multiplier of 18, the amount would come to Rs 2,78,640.

11. As far as the pain and suffering and loss of amenities are concerned, we think it is appropriate to grant a sum of Rs 1,00,000. In respect of other heads, namely, medical expenses, extra nourishment, transport charges and loss of earning during treatment, the amount awarded by the High Court is allowed to remain as such. Thus, the amount on the aforesaid scores would come to Rs 45,000. As far as the future replacement of artificial limbs and other medical expenses are concerned, keeping in view the escalation of price, we think it seemly to enhance it to Rs 1,25,000.

12. Presently to the grant of interest. The High Court has declined to award interest on the enhanced sum. No reason has been ascribed therefor. Section 171 of the Act deals with award of interest. It reads as follows:

“171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.—Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.”

13. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India (2003) 3 SCC 148 S.B Sinha, J. in his opinion after referring to the earlier decisions opined that the question as to what should be the rate of interest would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and award of interest would normally depend on the bank rate prevailing at that time. Ar. Lakshmanan, J. in his concurring opinion stated as follows:

“18. … The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life, etc., into consideration.”

14. In T.N State Transport Corpn. v. Natarajan (2003) 6 SCC 137 this Court awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on the amount of compensation.

15. Thus analysed, we are disposed to think that the High Court has erred in not granting interest on the enhanced sum. As is evincible, the Tribunal had granted payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we find that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and accordingly we direct that the interest on the differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit of the same before the Tribunal. The respondent Corporation is directed to deposit the differential amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today.

16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.