LexARVIND KUMAR MISHRA versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 857 ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 5510 of 2005) SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] A B Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Compensation - Claim for - Motor accident of final year engineering student, aged 25 years - 70% permanent disability - Compensation C of Rs. 2,50,000 with interest@ 9 % p.a. by tribunal - Enhanced to Rs. 3, 50, 0001- by High Court - On appeal held: Tribunal as well as High Court erred in not taking appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multplicand while assessing compensation - In view of the facts, taking multiplicand as Rs. D 42,0001- p.a. and operative multiplier as 18, compensation is enhanced to Rs. 9,06,0001- with simple interest@ 9% p.a. - Claimant also entitled to cost of Rs. 15, 0001-. The appellant, final year engineering student aged about 25 years, met with the serious accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. It was certified that the appellant suffered 70% permanent disablement. The appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,0001- with interest @ 9% per annum, holding the owner of the vehicle and the insurer liable to pay compensation to the appellant. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,50,000/ E F -. Aggrieved, by the compensation awarded by the High Court, the appellant filed the instant appeal. G Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The conventional basis of assessing 857 H 858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R. A compensation in personal injury cases - and that is now a recognized mode as to the proper measure of compensation - is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate. multiplicand. In the instant case, the tribunal as well as the High Court seriously erred in not assessing B the compensation for personal injury to the appellant in accord with the recognized mode - by taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand. [Paras 7 and 9] [864-C-D; 865-E] General Manager Kera/a State Road Transport C Corporation, Trivandrum v.. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors (1994) 2 SCC 176 - affirmed. 1.2 The appellant at the time of accident was a final year engineering (Mechanical) student in a reputed D college. He was a remarkably brilliant student having passed all his semester examinations in distinction. Due to the accident he suffered grievous injuries and remained in coma for about two months. His studies got interrupted as he was moved to different hospitals for E surgeries a'nd other treatments. For many months his condition remained serious and his right hand was amputated and vision seriously affected. These multiple injuries ultimately leCt to 70% permanent disablement. He wa~ rendered incapacitated and a career ahead of him in F his chosen line of mechanical engineering got dashed for ever. He is now in a physical condition in which he would require domestic help throughout his life. He has been deprived of pecuniary benefits which he could have reasonably acquired had he not suffered permanent G disablement to the extent of 70% in the accident. [Para 10] [865-F-H; 866-A] H 1.3 On completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the prestigious institute like B.l.T., it can be reasonably assumed that he would have got a good ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA v. NEW INDIA 859 ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. job. The appellant stated in his evidence that in the A campus interview he was selected by Tata as well as Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of Rs. 3,50,000/- per annum. Even if that is not accepted for want of any evidence, there would not have been any difficulty for him in getting some decent job' in the private B sector. Had he decided to join government service and got selected, he would have been put in the pay scale for Assistant Engineer and would have at least earned Rs. 60,000/- per annum. Wherever he joined, he had a fair chance of some promotion and remote chance of some c high position. But uncertainties of life cannot be ignored taking· relevant factors into consideration. It is fair and reasonable to assess his future earnings at Rs. 60,000/- per annum taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment as the 0 basis. Since he suffered 70% permanent disability, the future earnings m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.