JAGDISH versus MOHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 06-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
JAGDISH
v.
MOHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2217 of 2018)
MARCH 06, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor accident: Compensation – Enhancement – Self
employed, skilled carpenter met with motor accident – Income taken
as 4050/- and disability assessed at 90% - Award of
Rs.12,81,228/- as compensation by the tribunal, however the High
Court awarded an additional amount of Rs.2,19,000/- – On appeal
held: Claim of the victim that his earnings were Rs. 6,000/- pm cannot
be regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a realistic
assessment of the situation on the date of the accident – As regards,
the benefit of future prospects, being self-employed person, addition
of 40 per cent of the established income should be made where the
age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years,
thus, the victim entitled to an enhancement of Rs. 2400/- towards
loss of future prospects – Victim has suffered a serious disability in
which he has suffered a loss of the use of both his hands – He is
unable to even eat or to attend to a visit to the toilet without the
assistance of an attendant – Disability is indeed total – Thus, the
victim awarded a total sum of Rs. 25,38,308/- by way of
compensation, payable on account of the loss of income, including
future prospects, pain, suffering and loss of amenities, medical
expenses, with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the
compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition.
Appellant-self employed skilled carpenter met with a motor
accident. Tribunal took the monthly income of the appellant as
Rs.4,050/- and assessed the disability at 90%. The compensation
of Rs.12,81228/- was awarded for the injuries suffered by the
victim. However the High Court awarded an additional amount
of Rs.2,19,000/- with interest of 7.5 per cent per annum from the
date of filing of the claim. Hence, the instant appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
  [2018] 3 S.C.R. 20
20
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
21
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The claim of the appellant that his earnings
were Rs. 6,000/- per month cannot be discarded. This claim cannot
be regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a realistic
assessment of the situation on the date of the accident. As held
in in Pranay Sethi case that the benefit of future prospects should
not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would
extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed
person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income
should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the
accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the instant case, the
appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs. 2400/-
towards loss of future prospects. [Paras 9, 10] [27-B-C, D-E]
1.2 In making the computation, the court must be mindful
of the fact that the appellant suffered a serious disability in which
he has suffered a loss of the use of both his hands. For a person
engaged in manual activities, it requires no stretch of imagination
to understand that a loss of hands is a complete deprivation of
the ability to earn. Nothing at least in the facts of the case–can
restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect
a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being.
The yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to
lead one to question whether the law values human life. If it does,
as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of
loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not
law’s doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements
under law. The conversations about law must shift from a
paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of
enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity. [Para 11]
[27-E-G]
1.2 The tribunal noted that the appellant was unable to even
eat or to attend to a visit to the toilet without the assistance of an
attendant. In this background, it would be a denial of justice to
compute the disability at 90 per cent. The disability is indeed
total. Having regard to the age of the appellant, the tribunal applied
a multiplier of 18. In the circumstances, the compensation payable
to the appellant on account of the loss of income, including future
prospects, would be Rs. 18,14,400/-. In addition to this amount,
JAGDISH v. MOHAN & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 

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