MANU/SC/1018/2010

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8981 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007)

Decided On: 18.10.2010

Appellants: Raj Kumar Vs. Respondent: Ajay Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale

ORDER

R.V. Raveendran, J.

1. Leave granted. Heard.

2. The Appellant was injured in a motor accident on 1.10.1991 and sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture of left radius. He was under treatment from 1.10.1991 to 16.6.1992. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by award dated 20.7.2002, awarded compensation of Rs. 94,700/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. The amount awarded was made up of Rs. 11,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance and special diet; Rs. 3600/- towards loss of earning during period of treatment; Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs. 55,080 towards loss of future earnings. For calculating the loss of future earnings, the Tribunal took the minimum wage as the monthly income of the Appellant, that is Rs. 891/- rounded off to Rs. 900/- and deducted one-third therefrom towards the personal and living expenses; and by assuming the percentage of disability (45%) shown in disability certificate to be the economic disability, the Tribunal arrived at loss of future earnings as 45% of Rs. 600/-, that is Rs. 270/- per month or Rs. 3,240/- per annum. By applying a multiplier of 17, it arrived at Rs. 55,080/- as the loss of future earnings. The Appellant filed an appeal seeking increase in compensation. The High Court rejected the said appeal by the impugned judgment dated 31.1.2007 on the ground that the disability certificate produced by the Appellant was not reliable. The said judgment of the High Court is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

3. The Appellant puts forth two grievances: (i) the assessment of monthly income at Rs. 900/- was very low; and (ii) deduction of one third of the income (towards personal and living expenses) while assessing the future loss of earning was not warranted. The questions that therefore arise for our consideration are whether the principles adopted for assessing the compensation were erroneous and whether compensation awarded requires to be increased.

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.

The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.<mpara>
(See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd. MANU/SC/0146/1995 : 1995 (1) SC........