2025 INSC 107
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE K.V.
VISWANATHAN, J. AND HON’BLKE S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.)
T. RAJAMONI (D) THR.
LRS
Petitioner
VERSUS
MANAGER ORIENTAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Respondent
Civil
Appeal Nos. 999-1000 of 2025 (@ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 20702-03 of 2021)-Decided on
24-01-2025
Compensation,
MACT
Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, Section 166 - MACT – Injury case – MACT determined loss of
dependency 17.01 Lakhs (24.3 lakhs x 70%) but High Court reduced it to 2,10,000/-(3000x70)
- First appellant admittedly suffered serious head injuries, viz., underwent
more than one operation - From the nature of the head injuries, it cannot be
held that the first appellant would have returned to complete normalcy and is
entitled to loss of income only at Rs.100/- per day - The observation of the
Tribunal, which had the advantage of appreciating the witnesses, including the
claimant, noted that the appellant continued to suffer from disability such as
memory loss, defective speech, etc.- The
Tribunal concluded that the first appellant was earning Rs.450/- per day, then
applied the multiplier for 70% disability loss - This approach, having regard
to the view taken in National Insurance Company Limited vs. v. Pranay
Sethi and others. needs interference - To that extent, the High Court may
be right in not applying multiplier in an abstract manner - Simultaneously,
determining Rs.3,000/- per percentage as a loss of future income held
unsustainable - There is no discussion for arriving at Rs.3,000/- per
percentage - The first appellant established his avocation as a mason - The
employability of a person with serious head injuries is a circumstance which
ought to have been kept in the perspective for determining the loss of income
of the first appellant - By taking note of the admitted circumstances, the age
of the first appellant, even assuming as 50 years, as contended by the
Insurance Company, the compensation for loss of income and also loss for future
earnings can be determined at Rs.7,50,000/ - Held that a reasonable lumpsum
compensation towards the admissible heads i.e., ‘loss of earning capacity’ has
been considered and awarded - First appellant died during the pendency of
civil appeals, and the notional calculation of loss of income as per the
principles laid down in the cases referred above are
applied accordingly - Compensation works out to Rs. 12,09,017/- with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment -
The compensation already paid shall be given due credit.
(Para
11 and 12)
JUDGMENT
S.V.N. Bhatti, J. :- Leave granted.
2.
The appeals arise from the common order dated 30.06.2021 in CMA (MD) Nos. 979
of 2014 and 305 of 2015 (“Impugned Order”) on the file of the Madurai Bench of
Madras High Court that were filed by Oriental Insurance Company Limited
questioning the award of compensation of Rs.21,35,000/- (Indian Rupees
twenty-one lakh thirty-five thousand) and by the claimant for enhanced
compensation. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status
in CMA (MD) No. 305 of 2015. The first appellant died on 14.01.2024, and appellants nos.1.1 to 1.4, as legal
representatives of the first appellant, are prosecuting the appeal(s).
3.
The case of the appellant is that on 10.10.2011, he and his wife were returning
from the market and, as pedestrians, were walking on the left side of the
road towards the southern direction from Mekkamandapam to Azhahiamandapam. The
first respondent, Paul Raj, was driving an autorickshaw bearing No. TN 74
E 2622 and, from behind, the first respondent hit the first appellant in a rash
and negligent way. The accident resulted in grievous injuries to the first
appellant. The second respondent, Vijila. P, is the owner of the vehicle, and
the third respondent, the Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is the
insurer. The first appellant filed MCOP No. 34 of 2013 before the Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal (Special Court for Forest Offence Cases), Nagercoil
(“the Tribunal”), under Section 166(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Indian Rupees twenty-five lakh) under
various heads from the respondents. The findings on the accident and the rash
and negligent driving by the auto driver are accepted by the insurer. The
appeals are filed questioning the reduction of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal and for the award of the claimed compensation. Therefore, the
averments and the evidence on the admitted position are not adverted to as part
of the narrative of the case. At the time of the accident, the first appellant
is stated to have been working as a Mason under PW-3. Dr. Thomas Baby was
examined as PW-2. The claimant exhibited P-1 to P-25. No oral or documentary
evidence is placed on record by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs.21,35,000/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lakh Thirty-Five Thousand) with
interest @7.5% per annum. The insurer, filed CMA (MD) No. 979 of 2014 before
the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The High Court has taken note of the
oral evidence of PW-2 and the extent of disability the first appellant suffered
in the accident and has noted that the first appellant failed to establish that
he has loss of memory and is suffering from defective hearing, etc. The High
Court, through the impugned Judgment, redetermined the compensation. For
a quick grasp of the scope of the appeals, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal and the High Court is stated as follows:
|
Heads |
MACT |
HC |
|
Annual
Income-(Mason) |
1,62,000
(13,500x12)(Rs.450 daily) |
2,10,000/-(3000x70) |
|
Future
Prospects |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Multiplier
(Age 44) |
24.3
Lakhs (1,62,000x15) |
Nil |
|
Disability
Loss- |
(70%) |
70% |
|
Annual
Loss of Dependency |
17.01
Lakhs (24.3 lakhs x 70%) |
2,10,000/- |
|
For
two grievous injuries |
20,000/- |
20,000/- |
|
Pain
and Suffering |
25,000/- |
50,000/- |
|
Medical
Bills |
1,47,267/- |
1,47,267/- |
|
Earning
loss as an in-patient |
6750/-
(450x15 days) |
6750/-
(450x15 days) |
|
Attendant
Charges |
1,32,000/- |
1,32,000/- |
|
Loss
of Amenities & Expectation |
1,00,000/- |
1,00,000/- |
|
Transport
Charges |
3,000/- |
3,000/- |
|
Total
= |
Rs.21,35,000/-(7.5%) |
Rs.6,69,017/- |
4.
The High Court, as part of its consideration of the quantum of compensation,
held that the multiplier to arrive at a loss of future income cannot be applied
to the case on hand. The finding recorded is that it would be appropriate to
award Rs.3,000/- per percentage and thus awarded Rs.2,10,000/- towards loss of
income since the claimant suffered 70% disability. The High Court enhanced the
compensation under the “pain and suffering” head from Rs.25,000/- to
Rs.50,000/- and retained the compensation granted under other heads.
5.
Hence, the appeals.
6.
We have heard Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar and Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Counsel
for the parties.
7.
The learned Counsel for the appellants argues that the first appellant suffered
serious head injuries in the accident dated 10.10.2011, viz., (i) Temporal Bone
Fracture, (ii) Parietal Bone Fracture, and (iii) Clavicle (Collarbone)
Fracture. Further, considering the nature of the self-employment of the first
appellant as a Mason, the determination of loss of income of the first appellant
is illegal and erroneous. The grievous injuries are not disputed; however,
percentage of disability is contested by the insurer. The High Court fell in a
serious error by not following the Constitution Bench Judgment in National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others[(2017) 16 SCC 680]. The evidence of PW-2 remains unchallenged,
coupled with the discharge summary exhibited by the appellant. The appellant
would not have resumed the demanding job of a mason after the accident. Even
assuming that the multiplier is not applicable, awarding Rs.3,000/- per
percentage is not commensurate to the loss of income suffered by the first
appellant. There is no basis for arriving at Rs.3,000/- pay loss of income. The
consideration is contrary to other findings accepted by the High Court. In
effect, the loss of future income is arrived at Rs.100/- per day. He prays for
restoring the loss of dependency awarded by the Tribunal.
8.
Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, contends
that assuming that PW-2, the Doctor who treated the first appellant, has been
examined, the disability suffered by the first appellant on account of the
accident is not established by placing on record the disability certificate
issued by a competent authority. The age of the first appellant is inconsistent
and the award of future income loss by the Tribunal towards 70% disability is
unsustainable.
9.
We have perused the record and taken note of the submissions of the Counsel
appearing for the parties. The only point for decision is whether the appellant
is entitled to compensation towards loss of income or not, and if so, to what
extent. We keep in our perspective the view of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited (supra) and New India Assurance Company
Limited v. Urmila Shukla and others[(2021)
20 SCC 800] .
10.
At the outset, we would like to observe that the High Court, in paragraph 8 of
the impugned order, noted that the Counsel appearing for the appellant filed a
Memo dated 28.06.2021 withdrawing from the brief. This warrants an observation
on the Counsel appearing for the first appellant. In the given circumstances,
it cannot be observed that the High Court was wrong in any way for noting the
Memo filed by the Counsel appearing for the first appellant. The circumstances
not noted by the impugned Judgment is that the element of prejudice suffered by
the first appellant for want of proper representation on his behalf cannot be
lost sight of by this Court. In other words, the appeals have been disposed of
without due representation on behalf of the first appellant. One of the options
available to us is to remit the matters to the High Court for fresh disposal.
As noted above, the first appellant is no more, and it is a matter of
determination that the award of Rs.2,10,000/- towards loss of income to the
first appellant is commensurate to the admitted disability suffered by the
first appellant.
11.
We have perused the evidence of PW-2, and we take note of the fact that PW-2 is
not the signatory of the disability certificate relied on by the first
appellant. The facts established from the series of exhibits filed by the first
appellant are that the first appellant admittedly suffered serious head
injuries, viz., underwent more than one operation. From the nature of the head
injuries, it cannot be held that the first appellant would have returned to
complete normalcy and is entitled to loss of income only at Rs.100/- per day.
The observation of the Tribunal, which had the advantage of appreciating the
witnesses, including the claimant, noted that the appellant continued to suffer
from disability such as memory loss, defective speech, etc. The Tribunal
concluded that the first appellant was earning Rs.450/- per day, then applied the
multiplier for 70% disability loss. This approach, having regard to the view
taken in National Insurance Company Limited (supra), needs
interference. To that extent, the High Court may be right in not applying
multiplier in an abstract manner. Simultaneously, determining Rs.3,000/- per
percentage as a loss of future income is unsustainable. There is no discussion
for arriving at Rs.3,000/- per percentage. The first appellant established his
avocation as a mason. The employability of a person with serious head injuries
is a circumstance which ought to have been kept in the perspective for
determining the loss of income of the first appellant. By taking note of the
admitted circumstances, the age of the first appellant, even assuming as 50
years, as contended by the Insurance Company, the compensation for loss of
income and also loss for future earnings can be determined at Rs.7,50,000/. We
are of the view that a reasonable lumpsum compensation towards the admissible
heads i.e., ‘loss of earning capacity’ has been considered and awarded. We also
take note of the fact that the first appellant died during the pendency of
civil appeals, and the notional calculation of loss of income as per the
principles laid down in the cases referred above are
applied accordingly. Thus, the total compensation, is redetermined as follows:
|
Heads |
Compensation |
|
Loss
of Annual Income-(Mason) |
7,50,000/- |
|
For
two grievous injuries |
20,000/- |
|
Pain
and Suffering |
50,000/- |
|
Medical
Bills |
1,47,267/- |
|
Earning
loss as an in-patient |
6750/- |
|
Attendant
Charges |
1,32,000/- |
|
Loss
of Amenities & Expectation |
1,00,000/- |
|
Transport
Charges |
3,000/- |
|
Total
|
12,09,017/- |
12.
Thus, the compensation works out to Rs. 12,09,017/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Nine
Thousand Seventeen) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim
petition till the date of payment. The compensation already paid shall be given
due credit.
13.
The third respondent, the insurer, is directed to deposit the balance
compensation with interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of this
Judgment before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Special Court for Forest
Offence Cases), Nagercoil.
14.
The Civil Appeals are allowed in part. There is no order as to costs.
------