Govind Yadav Vs The New India Insurance Company Limited (Supreme Court)– 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. 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. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also meager. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of 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 normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 9014 OF]f 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 30556 of 2009)
Govind Yadav …….Appellant
Versus
The New India Insurance Company Limited …….Respondents
J U D G E M E N T
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has approached this Court because he is not fully satisfied with the enhancement granted by the High Court in the amount of compensation awarded by 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short, `the Tribunal’).
3. In the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), which came to be registered as MVC No.59 of 2005, the appellant prayed for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,70,000/- with interest @ 18%. The appellant’s claim was founded on the following assertions:
(i) That he had suffered grievous injuries in an accident which occurred on 14.11.2004 when the mini bus in which he was working as Helper overturned due to rash and negligent driving by the driver Shri Abdul Ahmad Musalman.
(ii) That he was initially treated at Government Hospital, Seoni from where he was shifted to Nagpur Medical College. He remained in the hospital from 14.11.2004 to 2.1.2005 and 15.2.2005 to 20.3.2005. Due to infection, his left leg was amputated above the knee. Thereafter, he was treated at National Hospital, Jabalpur.
(iii) That at the time of accident his age was about 24 years and he was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/-.
(iv) That on account of amputation of leg, he lost the job and his future was bleak.
4. The owner and the driver of the vehicle did not contest the claim of the appellant, but the respondent insurance company did so. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it was pleaded that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the mini bus and, in any case, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation because the driver of the mini bus did not have valid driving licence.
5. After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the mini bus by its driver. However, the Tribunal did not accept the appellant’s version that he was working as a Helper and was getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- by observing that he had not produced any evidence to prove the factum of employment and monthly emoluments. The Tribunal then referred to the Second Schedule of the Act and determined the amount of compensation by assuming the appellant’s income to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The Tribunal was of the view that due to 70% disability, the appellant would suffer loss of income to the tune of Rs. 10,500/- per annum. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 17 and held that the appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,78,500/- towards loss of future income. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads was as under:
1) Mental agony and physical pain caused due to amputation of the leg and other injuries Rs. 25000/-
2) Medical expenses Rs. 3300/-
3) Expenditure incurred on nutritious food and transportation during treatment Rs. 10000/-
4) Loss of earning due to accident and entertainment from normal earning Rs. 10000/-
5) Cost of artificial leg Rs. 30000/-
The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 6% on the total compensation of Rs. 2,56,800/-.
6. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the award of the Tribunal was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by granting an enhancement of Rs. 50,000/-. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, the income of the appellant, who was working as Cleaner at the time of accident could be taken as Rs. 2000/- per month i.e. Rs. 24,000/- per annum and the loss of income due to 70% permanent disability would be Rs. 16,800/- per annum. He also applied the multiplier of 17 and held that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,85,600/- towards future loss of income. The learned Single Judge added Rs. 20,400/- towards conveyance charges, special diet and medical expenses and concluded that the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 3,06,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application.
7. Shri Rajnish K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was wholly inadequate and the High Court committed serious error by not granting appropriate enhancement keeping in view the fact that on account of the permanent disability suffered by him, the appellant will not be able to get suitable employment and lead normal life. He further argued that the Tribunal and the High Court gravely erred in not awarding just and reasonable compensation for future treatment including cost of artificial leg which will require periodical replacement.
8. Shri S.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, supported the impugned judgment and argued that the appellant has failed to make out a case for further enhancement in amount of compensation.
9. We have considered respective submissions. This Court has, from time to time, expressed concern over the increasing number of motor accidents and pendency of large number of cases involving adjudication of claims made by the legal representatives of the deceased and also by those who suffer injuries and disabilities of various types as a result of accidents. The statistics compiled by Transport Research Wing of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi show that between 2004 and 2008, more than 5,00,000 people lost their lives and about 22,60,000 people were injured. The table containing the details of road accidents in India (2004-2008) as published in the report titled
“Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India, 2008” by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs is reproduced below:
