DIVYA versus THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 956 · Decided: 18-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
DIVYA
v.
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7605 of 2022)
OCTOBER 18, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.168 – Compensation – ‘Just
compensation’ – Assessment of – On 08.08.1998, at the age of two
years appellant sustained very serious injuries in a motor accident
– Tribunal dismissed the claim of appellant on technical grounds –
In appeal, the High Court referred the appellant/claimant before
Medical Board for examination and assessment of permanent
disability – Medical Board opined that the disability caused to
appellant was almost 100% – High Court came to the conclusion
that appellant was entitled to be compensated, and directed first
respondent-Insurance Company, to pay quantified compensation
of Rs. 13.34 lakhs with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of the payment – Compensation was awarded
under heads of a) Attender Charges, b) Pain and Sufferings and
Loss of Amenities, c) Marriage Prospects, d) Future Medical
Treatment and e) Grant of additional amount for special diet – Plea
before Supreme Court for grant of ‘just compensation’ by
enhancement of compensation under the various heads – Held: The
evidence on record show that the injuries sustained by appellant in
the motor accident virtually doomed her future – The corporeal
independence was lost forever – The state of her lower limbs, as
revealed from the photographs supporting the certification of the
opinion of the Medical Board, suggested that she could never be
cursorial or even, stretch her legs – In troth, she could not stand
sans support – She lost all her amenities and marriage prospects –
The contextual situation revealed an impossibility to bring back the
appellant to her original position – On careful scrutiny of the heads
of compensation, bearing in mind the decision in Kajal’s case, the
appellant is entitled to grant of enhancement of compensation on
certain grounds – Appellant entitled to total enhanced amount of
Rs. 24.90 lakhs (comprising of enhanced amounts towards attender
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 956
956
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
957
charges; pain and sufferings and loss of amenities; marriage
prospects; future medical treatment and grant of additional amount
for special diet) in addition to the amount already awarded by the
High Court – Insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount
with interest @ 7.5% per annum with effect from 29.08.2018 till the
date of deposit.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The evidence on record would undoubtedly show
that the appellant had sustained very serious injuries in a motor
accident involving the two vehicles mentioned hereinbefore and
the same virtually doomed her future. The corporeal
independence is lost forever. The state of appellant’s lower limbs,
as revealed from the photographs supporting the certification of
the opinion of the Medical Board, would suggest that she could
never be cursorial or even, stretch her legs. In troth, she could
not stand sans support. Needless to say, she lost all her amenities
and marriage prospects. The contextual situation reveal that it
was an impossibility to bring back the appellant to her original
position. [Paras 6 and 7][963-E-G; 964-A]
2. On careful scrutiny of the heads of compensation, bearing
in mind the decision of Kajal’s case, it is clear that the appellant
is entitled to enhancement/grant, of compensation on certain
grounds.
2.1 Attender Charges:- Towards ‘attender charges’ the High
Court has granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1 Lakh. In Kajal
case, this Court held that when compensation is awarded in
lumpsum, various factors had to be taken into consideration and
usually for ordering grant of lumpsum amount this Court always
followed a multiplier system. The High Court has rightly identified
the multiplier by looking into the table in Sarla Verma’s case as
15. The physical condition of the appellant would, undoubtedly,
reveal that she would require lifelong services of two attendants.
Following the decision in Kajal’s case, in that regard
Rs. 10,000/- per month can be granted and at that rate the annual
amount would come to Rs. 1,20,000/-. Applying the multiplier of
15 the amount payable would be Rs. 18 lakh. [Paras 10][965-E-
H]
DIVYA v. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
2.2 Pain and Sufferings and Loss of Amenities:- Under the
head of ‘Pain and Suffer

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.