LexK. SURESH versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2012) 11 S.C.R. 414 K. SURESH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 7603 of 2012) OCTOBER 19, 2012 [K.5. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] . Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.168 - Determination of compensation - Just compensation - Concept of - C Explained. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss.166 and 168 - Accident with auto resulting in multiple grievous injuries and fractures all over the body of the appellant - Held: Victim-appellant D entitled to compensation for loss of earning capacity as well as for permanent disability - View of High Court that no compensation can be granted towards permanent disability once compensation is computed for the loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings is unsustainable - On E facts, appellant entitled to compensation on the headings: transport charges, extra-nourishment, medical expenses, additional medical expenses, additional transport charges, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity and permanent disability and accordingly awarded total compensation of Rs.13.48 lakhs with interest@ 7.5%. F The appellant was hit by an auto driven in a rash and negligent manner causing multiple grievous injuries and fractures all over his body. The tribunal assessed the permanent disability of the appellant at 75% and awarded G Rs.25,00,0001· under various heads, namely, transport charges, extra nourishment, medical expenses, additional medical expenses, pain and sufferings suffered by family members of the claimant, mental agony, additional transport charges, inability of the appellant to participate H 414 K. SURESH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 415 AND ANR. in public functions, loss of marital life, pain and suffering, A permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. Before the High Court as serious objections were raised pertaining to percentage of disability, the appellant was referred to the Medical Board and it was found that he had compression fracture which had healed with persistence B of pain in the back with root involvement causing grade IV power in left lower limb and, accordingly, the Board fixed the permanent disability at 40"/o. The High Court adverted to the concept of "just compensation" and opined that the quantum of damages fixed should be in c proportionate to the injuries caused. It opined that Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- each for transport charges and extra nourishment, Rs.2,50,000/ towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.4,68,000/- towards loss of earning D capacity would be the just amount of compensation and thus, reduced the total amount of compensation to Rs.9,78,000/-. The High Court also reduced the interest to 7.5"/o from 9% as granted by the tribunal. In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that E the High Court had erroneously held that there cannot be grant of compensation under two heads, namely, "permanent disability" and "loss of earning power"; that the tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence on record and fixed certain sum under various heads but the F High Court on unacceptable reasons deleted the same and also that the High Court without ascribing any cogent reasons reduced the expenses for continuous treatment from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- as a result of which the amount had been substantially reduced and the concept G of "just compensation" lost its real characteristics. The question which therefore arose for consideration was whether the analysis made by the High Court in not granting compensation under certain heads and further H 416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A reducing the amount on certain scores, was justified. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Despite many a pronouncement in the field, it still remains a challenging situation warranting B sensitive as well as dispassionate exercise how to determine the incalculable sum in calculable terms of money in cases of personal injuries. In such assessment neither sentiments nor emotions have any role. There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart C or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it D becomes a challenge for a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.