Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Satheesh E. vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Etc. on 2 November, 2022
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.8059-8060 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.775-776 of 2022)
SATHEESH E. … APPELLANT
Versus
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. … RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The grievance of the appellant – claimant is against the
judgment and order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the High Court of
Kerala whereby the compensation amount of Rs.14,91,650/-, awarded
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode (hereinafter
referred to as `the Tribunal’) along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum, has been reduced to Rs.11,52,950-/ though without
disturbing the rate of interest.
3. The appellant aged 48 years at the relevant time met with
the motor accident on 20.10.2012. He was riding his motor cycle and
the delinquent vehicle, namely, a bus hit him from the rear side
due to which he fell down and was run over by the front tyre of the
bus. The appellant was rushed to the hospital due to severe
injuries
Signature Not Verified
suffered to his genitals, which allegedly resulted in
Digitally signed by
satish kumar yadav
Date: 2022.11.10
impotency and erectile dysfunction. The appellant claimed that his
18:35:40 IST
Reason:
monthly income was Rs.15,000/- at the time of accident. The
2
Tribunal accepted the monthly income of the appellant at the rate
of Rs.15,000/-, and having held that the appellant had suffered
loss of earnings for a period of two years, the Tribunal granted
him compensation towards loss of income for a period of 24 months.
The overall compensation granted by the Tribunal was to the tune of
Rs.14,91,650/-. Both the parties felt aggrieved and filed cross
appeals before the High Court. While accepting the appeal of the
respondent – Insurance Company in part, the High Court viewed that
though the appellant continued to take treatment upto the year 2015
(accident took place on 28.10.2012) but the documents produced by
him were only outdoor tickets and, therefore, it would be
sufficient to grant him compensation for the loss of earnings for a
period of 12 months instead of 24 months as awarded by the
Tribunal. The High Court further held that the appellant in his
cross-examination had admitted that his loss of monthly profit was
Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the income of the appellant was assessed
at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- per
month. Consequently, the High Court reduced the compensation
amount to Rs.11,52,950/-.
4. We have heard learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent – Insurance Company and gone through the material placed
on record including the depositions of the appellant and the
medical experts, with a view to appreciate the appellant’s claim.
5. As regard to the monthly income of the appellant, it
appears to us that the High Court has misconstrued his version in
the cross-examination where he has referred to the loss of “profit”
3
of Rs.10,000/- per month. If this statement is to be accepted, in
that case, the monthly income of the appellant was bound to be more
than Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal, thus, appears to be right in
making a fair and just valuation of monthly income of the appellant
as Rs.15,000/-. We see no justification for the High Court to
reduce the same to Rs.10,000/-. Having held that, the necessary
consequence will be that the appellant is entitled to restoration
of the compensation as was awarded by the Tribunal, namely,
Rs.14,91,650/-. The High Court was, however, justified in enhancing
the compensation amount under the head of `pain and suffering’ from
Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-, and under the head of `loss of
amenities’ from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-. Similarly, the High
Court rightly granted bystander expenses of Rs.13,500/-. The
appellant, thus, would be entitled to the above stated enhanced
compensation in addition to the amount of Rs.14,91,650/- granted by
the Tribunal.
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant then contended that the Tribunal and the High Court both
have not granted any compensation towards future prospects though
in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017)
16 SCC 680, as subsequently explained by this Court in Lalan D.
alias Lal and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
(2020) 9 SCC 805. Applying the ratio of these decisions in an
injury case, the appellant is also entitled to additional
compensation towards future prospects.
7. We find force in the contention of the learned Senior
4
counsel as in view of para 59.4 of the Constitution Bench judgment
in Pranay Sethi(supra), the appellant would be entitled to
additional compensation towards future prospects at the rate of 25%
of the monthly income in view of the fact that he was 48 years’ old
at the time of accident. We order accordingly. The Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode is, thus, directed to re-calculate the
amount of compensation, as is admissible to the appellant in the
above terms, within a period of one month from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order. On doing so, the
respondent – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
additional amount of compensation within one month thereafter
before the Tribunal. The said amount shall then be released to the
appellant without any delay.
8. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
9. As a sequel thereto, pending interlocutory applications
stand disposed of.
.........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............…….........J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 02, 2022.
5
ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).775-776/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-03-2021
in MACA No.1150/2016 and MACA No.315/2016 passed by the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam)
SATHEESH E. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ETC. Respondent(s)
(MACT MATTERS
IA No.91509/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No.7906/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No.7907/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 02-11-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.Chidambresh, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Biju P Raman, AOR Ms. Dhanya Venugopal, Adv. Mr. C.Govind Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandran, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order. As a sequel thereto, pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file) 6