2025 INSC 394
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. AND
HON’BLE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.)
SRIKRISHNA KANTA
SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No.______________OF
2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12459 of 2019)-Decided on 25-03-2025
Compensation,
MACT
(A) Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 166 – MACT – Injury case -
Amputation of both his legs – Contributory negligence - Held that in a motor
accident claim, there is no adversarial litigation and it is the preponderance
of probabilities which reign supreme in adjudication of the tortious liability
flowing from it - Police after investigation, charge-sheeted the driver of the
trailer finding clear negligence on him, which led to the accident - This has
not been controverted by the respondents before the Tribunal by any valid
evidence nor even a pleading - In fact, the Tribunal, on a mere imaginative
surmise, found that since the scooter collided with the tail-end of the
trailer, it can be presumed that the driver of the scooter was not cautious,
which in any event is not a finding of negligence - Prima facie, the negligence
was on the trailer driver as discernible from the evidence recorded before the
Tribunal; standard of proof required being preponderance of probability -
Having found the trailer to be driven rashly and negligently, do not think that
the mere fact that the driver of the scooter had only a learners licence would
necessarily lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the
scooter driver - There can be no negligence found on the scooter driver also by
the mere fact that the accident occurred on a collision at the tail-end of a
long trailer, when the scooter driver had better visibility; which is a
question of fact liable to be proved and not merely presumed – Held that the
Tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence of the scooter driver and the
High Court too committed a similar error in affirming it - As we noticed,
absolving the scooter owner/driver of the contributory negligence is perfectly
valid even without his presence in the present proceedings or in the appeal
before the High Court since it does not, at all, prejudice him. The appellant
is entitled to compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle, which is
unequivocally found to be the trailer; which is covered by a valid policy as
admitted by the respondent-insurance company.
(Para
13 and 14)
(B) Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 166 – MACT– Injury case -
Amputation of both his legs – Permanent disablement - It has been proved that
the appellant lost both his legs; one from above the knee and the other from below
the knee - It is trite that there cannot be separate compensation awarded for
permanent disability, physical discomfort and loss of amenities of life - The
claim of the appellant is Rs.9,00,000/- under the separate heads – Held that it
can be restricted to Rs.5,00,000/- under the common heads of permanent
disability, physical discomfort and loss of amenities of life; considering the
amputation suffered of both his legs - The cost of medical treatment has been
claimed as Rs.2,00,000/- - However, the claim petition does not bind the Court
in granting just compensation - Considering the use of prosthetics; which is
also subject to wear and tear, it is only proper that an amount of
Rs.9,00,000/- be granted on a composite basis for both medical treatment and
artificial limbs - The cost of a personal attendant, at least for a period of
time, has to be allowed at Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant – Held
that the entire amount of Rs.16,00,000/- has to be awarded as compensation -
The amounts awarded, after deducting Rs.25,000/- received under Section 140 of the Act shall
be paid to the appellant with 7% simple interest per annum from the date of the
award - Insurance company directed to compute the amounts and intimate the same
to the appellant.
(Para
16 and 17)
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran,
J. :- Leave
granted.
2. A young Block Development
Officer["B.D.O."], riding
pillion, met with an accident leading to amputation
of both his legs. The injured /claimant filed an application for compensation
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The claimant sought for
compensation of Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs only) under various heads.
The Tribunal found that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-
(Rupees Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand only) and directed the insurer of the
offending vehicle to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty
Thousand only), holding that the driver of the scooter in which the appellant
was travelling pillion should have been more cautious. The balance liability of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) was directed to be paid by the owner of
the scooter who was also driving the sooter. The insurance company was directed
to pay the entire amount and recover the liability of the owner of the scooter,
from him.
3. An appeal was unsuccessfully
filed from the order of the Tribunal which is impugned in the above appeal. On
the question of contributory negligence, the High Court directed a sketch map
to be produced and on a perusal of the same, it was found that the vehicles
were travelling in opposite directions. Considering the discrepancies in the
depositions of the claimant, PW 1 and the two eyewitnesses, PWs 2 and 3, it was
held that the accident occurred after the long trailer had almost passed the
scooter and there is no head-on-collision as deposed by PW 3. It was held that
the driver of the scooter ought to have been more careful since he had a better
vision than the trailer driver, especially since the collision occurred at the
tail-end of the trailer. It was also found that the scooter driver had only a
learners licence which does not entitle him to carry a pillion rider. It was
found from the written statement of the scooter driver/owner that despite
disclosing the fact of the scooter driver holding only a learners licence, the
claimant had insisted to be carried pillion; which the scooter driver complied
with only because the demand was made by a B.D.O. It was found that the B.D.O.
had abused his authority and forced the commission of an illegal act by reason
of which he has suffered amputation of the legs in an accident involving the
scooter on which he had forcefully mounted. The appeal was, thus, dismissed.
The concurrent judgments thus found that the negligence on the trailer driver
was only partial and the scooter driver too contributed to the accident, by his
negligence too.
4. We heard Mr. Kunal Chatterji,
learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned
Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.
5. The learned Counsel for the
claimant/appellant argued that the compensation was very low considering the
injury caused to the claimant who suffered amputation of both his legs. The
injury necessitated the victim to always have the help of an attendant to
ensure his mobility. The claimant had to purchase prosthetics which were very
expensive and also replace it frequently since artificial limbs are susceptible
to wear and tear. It is pointed out that the bills for the prosthetics, which
had also to be changed periodically, are produced along with an Interlocutory
Application in the appeal, along with bills of the attendant. The claimant is
entitled to enhanced compensation even in addition to the claim made especially
considering the huge cost incurred for ensuring a semblance of normalcy to his
life by the purchase of prosthetics and its continued use. It is also argued
that the negligence found on the scooter driver was not on reasonable grounds nor
was it supported by any evidence. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal had
not granted any interest for the amounts awarded.
6. For the insurer, it was
submitted that the Tribunal, has clearly apportioned the liability to
compensation based on the finding of contributory negligence, imposing only 60%
of the compensation as the insurer's liability. It is pointed out that both the
owner of the trailer and owner of the driver of the scooter were deleted before
the High Court from the party array. In such circumstances, there could not
have been any enhancement of compensation since the liability would also be
imposed on the owner of the scooter. The finding of contributory negligence is
based on clear evidence. The scooter driver had only a learners licence, the
claimant was aware of it and the accident occurred at the tail end of the
trailer. It is argued that there was no proof of negligence of the trailer
driver. The subsequent documents produced of medical expenses cannot be looked
into.
7. We have seen from the records
that the owner of the trailer and owner/driver of the scooter were deleted from
the party array in the appeal filed before the High Court. True, if the
compensation is enhanced, the liability on the owner/driver of the scooter cannot
be directed to be paid by or recovered from the said person, since he is not
arrayed as a party in the appeal. However, we have to notice that even in that
circumstance 60% of the enhanced liability can very well be directed to be paid
by the insurer of the trailer. We hasten to add that this is only in the
context of the contributory negligence, if affirmed by us, and if it is
otherwise the claimant would be entitled to recover the entire award amounts
from the insurer, who has not chosen to file an appeal from either the order of
the Tribunal or the High Court.
8. The accident occurred on
03.11.1999 upon which a First Information Report["F.I.R."] was registered produced as Annexure P-4.
Annexure P-4 clearly indicates that the trailer was found to have been driven
rashly and negligently; the owner of which was the 1st respondent before the
Tribunal and the insurer, the 3rd respondent. The charge sheet has also been
filed which is produced as Annexure P-9. After investigation, the charge sheet
clearly found that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver
of the trailer and arrayed him as the accused. PW 1 who was riding pillion also
spoke of the rash and negligent driving of the trailer.
9. It is very pertinent that the
insurer had not raised a contention of contributory negligence on the scooter
driver in the written statement filed before the Tribunal which is produced as
Annexure P-14. There is also no serious challenge to the deposition of PW 1-the
victim, as to the manner in which the accident occurred; in cross-examination.
There were two eye-witnesses examined as PWs 2 and 3 whose testimonies were
disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that they were not shown as witnesses
in the criminal case. In that context, there was no reason for the High Court
to have laboured to harmonise the deposition of all the three witnesses.
10. The finding of the Tribunal
was also that the length of the trailer being very long, the scooter driver
should have been more cautious. The High Court has found that since there is no
head-on-collision, there has to be some negligence found on the part of the
scooter driver also. The High Court also found that the B.D.O. misused his
position in coercing the driver/owner of the scooter to take him pillion, despite
being aware of the fact that the driver had only a learners licence. We have to
immediately notice that such a contention was taken by the owner/driver in the
written statement filed, but he never cared to examine himself before the
Tribunal. In such circumstance, the High Court ought not to have given any
credence to the version of the owner/driver of the scooter which the claimant
had no opportunity to dispute by way of cross-examination.
11. In a motor accident claim,
there is no adversarial litigation and it is the preponderance of probabilities
which reign supreme in adjudication of the tortious liability flowing from it,
as has been held in Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation[(2020) 13 SCC 486]. Dulcina Fernandes
v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz[(2013) 10 SCC 646]
is a case in which the rider, who also carried a pillion, died in an accident
involving a pick-up van. There was a contention taken that the claimants who
were the legal heirs of the deceased had not cared to examine the pillion rider
and hence the version of the respondent in the written statement that the
moving scooter had hit the parked pick-up van, was to be accepted. It was found, as in the present case, that the Police
had charge-sheeted the driver of the pickup van which prima facie showed
negligence of the charge-sheeted accused. Similarly in the present case also,
the Police after investigation, charge-sheeted the driver of the trailer
finding clear negligence on him, which led to the accident. This has not been
controverted by the respondents before the Tribunal by any valid evidence nor
even a pleading. In fact, the Tribunal, on a mere imaginative surmise, found
that since the scooter collided with the tail-end of the trailer, it can be
presumed that the driver of the scooter was not cautious, which in any event is
not a finding of negligence.
12. Finding that the driver was
not cautious is one thing and finding negligence is quite another thing. Prima
facie, we are satisfied that the negligence was on the trailer driver as discernible
from the evidence recorded before the Tribunal; standard of proof required
being preponderance of probability as has been reiterated in Mangla Ram v.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited[(2018)
5 SCC 656].
13. Now, we come to the question
of whether negligence can be found on the ground of the driver of the scooter
having only a learners licence. We have already found that the finding of the
High Court that the B.D.O. had exercised his authority to travel pillion,
despite being aware of the driver holding only a learners licence, besides
being farfetched is not supported by any evidence. Sudhir Kumar Rana v.
Surinder Singh[(2008) 12 SCC 436] was
a case in which the claimant, a minor of 171/2 years, met with an accident
while riding a two wheeler, which collided with a mini truck. Holding that
ordinarily, negligence is only a
question of fact, it was found that when a person drives a vehicle without a
licence, he commits an offence, which by itself cannot lead to a finding of
negligence, leading to or as regards, the accident. Having found the trailer to
be driven rashly and negligently, we do not think that the mere fact that the
driver of the scooter had only a learners licence would necessarily lead to a
conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver. There
can be no negligence found on the scooter driver also by the mere fact that the
accident occurred on a collision at the tail-end of a long trailer, when the
scooter driver had better visibility; which is a question of fact liable to be
proved and not merely presumed.
14. On the above reasoning, we
find that that the Tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence of the
scooter driver and the High Court too committed a similar error in affirming
it. As we noticed, absolving the scooter owner/driver of the contributory
negligence is perfectly valid even without his presence in the present
proceedings or in the appeal before the High Court since it does not, at all,
prejudice him. The appellant is entitled to compensation from the insurer of
the offending vehicle, which is unequivocally found to be the trailer; which is
covered by a valid policy as admitted by the respondent-insurance company.
15. Now, we come to the question
of compensation payable, which was claimed under different heads. We tabulate
the amounts claimed under different heads and those awarded by the Tribunal:
|
Sr. No. |
Different heads |
Claim |
Awarded |
||
|
1. |
Cost of treatment including
cost of transportation. |
Rs.2,00,000 /- |
1,10,000/- |
||
|
|
Hospital charges, Medicines,
etc. |
|
|
||
|
2. |
Artificial limbs (both legs)
approx. |
Rs.3,00,000/- |
Rs.l,20,000/- |
||
|
3. |
Permanent disablement |
Rs.4,00,000/- |
Rs.2,00,000/- |
||
|
4. |
Pain and suffering throughout
life |
Rs.2,00,000 /- |
Rs.2,00,000/- |
||
|
5. |
Physical discomfort & loss
of amenities of life. |
Rs.3,00,000 /- |
|
||
|
6. |
Cost of one personal attendant
through out of life |
Rs.2,00000/- |
Rs.l,20,000/- |
||
|
|
Total |
Rs.16,00,000/- |
Rs.7,50,000/- |
||
16. The learned Counsel appearing
for the insurance company had argued that there is no scope for any permanent
disablement since the appellant who was a B.D.O., despite the disability, has
now been confirmed as an I.A.S. Officer; which is admitted by the learned
Counsel for the appellant. However, this
contention would only deprive the claim of loss of income but the compensation
for permanent disablement definitely has
to considered since it would necessarily lead to loss of life's amenities. It
has been proved that the appellant lost both his legs; one from above the knee
and the other from below the knee. It is trite that there cannot be separate
compensation awarded for permanent disability, physical discomfort and loss of
amenities of life. The claim of the appellant is Rs.9,00,000/-(Rupees Nine Lacs
only) under the separate heads. We are of the opinion that it can be restricted
to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) under the common heads of permanent
disability, physical discomfort and loss of amenities of life; considering the
amputation suffered of both his legs. The cost of medical treatment has been
claimed as Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs only). However, the claim petition
does not bind the Court in granting just compensation. We are of the opinion
that considering the use of prosthetics; which is also subject to wear and
tear, it is only proper that an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs only)
be granted on a composite basis for both medical treatment and artificial
limbs. The cost of a personal attendant, at least for a period of time, has to
be allowed at Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) as claimed by the appellant.
We, hence, are of the opinion that the entire amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees
Sixteen Lacs only) has to be awarded as compensation. We arrive at this amount
considering that the accident occurred in the year 1999 and the award cannot
have reference to the fact situation existing today; 25 years hence. The long
delay is compensated by the interest awarded. The quantum awarded is on the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
17. The amounts awarded, after
deducting Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) received under Section
140 of the Act shall be paid to the appellant with 7% simple interest per annum
from the date of the award. We direct the insurance company to compute the
amounts and intimate the same to the appellant. The appellant shall immediately
on receipt of this order intimate his bank account number to which, by
RTGS/NEFT transfer, the money shall be deposited at any rate within two months
from the date of receipt of this judgment.
18. The appeal stands allowed
with the above directions.
19. Pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of.
------