ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE versus PRATAP SON OF ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE & ANOTHER

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 21-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
11
ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE
v.
PRATAP SON OF ZHAMNNAPPA LAMZANE & ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 8420 of 2018)
AUGUST 21, 2018
[R. F. NARIMAN AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Motor accident – Leading to permanent disability to the
extent of 75% –  Claim for compensation – Tribunal granted
Rs.7,00,000/- as a lump-sum compensation with interest @ 7%  per
annum  – In first appeal, High Court held that for granting
compensation multiplier method should be used and thereby
enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.14,65,500/- with 9%
interest per annum – In appeal, held: The purpose of compensation
under the Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the
position prior to the accident – In the cases of accidents leading to
injuries and disablements, person must not only be compensated
for his physical injury, but also for non-pecuniary losses – The
compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.20,29,000/- with 9%
interest per annum from the date of application till the date of
payment.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1. The purpose of compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to
the position prior to the accident. In cases of motor accidents
leading to injuries and disablements, a person must not only be
compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary
losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is
entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, and
enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed,
but for the injuries. [Paras 5 and 6] [17-G-H]
Yadav Kumar v. The Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341 :
[2010] 10 SCR 746 – referred to.
  [2018] 10 S.C.R. 11
   11
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
2. The Appellant was employed by witness No. 3 and was
driving his personal car from 01.08.2008 on a monthly salary of
Rs. 8,500/-.  He also gave a certificate to that effect. The High
Court erroneously concluded that it would be just and appropriate
if the monthly income of the appellant is considered at Rs. 5,000/-
on the ground that the salary of Rs. 8500/- for a driver was on the
higher side. [Para 4.3] [17-D-E]
3. The Appellant’s income was Rs. 8,500/- per month. The
Appellant was 29 year at the time of the accident. The Multiplier
would be 17.  Where the claimant suffers a Permanent Disability
as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss of
future earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of the
Permanent Disability on his earning capacity. The effect of the
Permanent Disability on the earning capacity of the injured must
be considered; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in
terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in
terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings suffered
by the claimant. Loss of future income is calculated to
Rs. 13,00,500/-. [Paras 7.1 and 7.2] [18-D, E-G; 19-A]
Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 121 :  [2009] 5 SCR 1098 ;
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343:
[2010] 13 SCR 179 – relied on.
4. The Appellant has claimed compensation for actual loss
of income at Rs. 1,50,000/-. This claim of the Appellant cannot
succeed. The grant of loss of future income compensates for any
further period of time where income was lost. Actual loss of
income can only be awarded for the month in which the accident
took place. Therefore, one month’s salary being Rs. 8,500/- be
awarded for the month of October. [Para 7.3] [19-B]
5. The Appellant has claimed reimbursement of Medical
Expenses at Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Tribunal recorded that the
Claimant had incurred total expenditure of Rs. 5,50,000/- till the
date of the judgment for medicines, hospital charges, doctor’s
fee, operation charges, travelling expenses and expense for
special diet and granted Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation based
on actual expenditure. Since the Appellant has claimed expenses
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
for special diet and attendance charges separately before this
Court, therefore, it is appropriate to award Rs. 2,50,000/- as
claimed on account of recurring medical expenses. [Para 7.4]
[19-C-E]
6. The Appellant has claimed Rs. 90,000 for attendance and
conveyance charges. The High Court had granted Rs. 70,000/-.
Keeping in consideration the injury suffered, the Appellant has
permanently lost the source of livelihood as his movement has
got se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.