KAJAL versus JAGDISH CHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 05-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
KAJAL
v.
JAGDISH CHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 735 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 05, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just compensation – Personal
injury cases – Victim (minor) was travelling on a tractor with her
parents when it was hit by a truck – She suffered serious injuries
resulting in damage to her brain – Disability was assessed as 100%
– Disability certificate stated that as per assessment her I.Q. is less
than 20% of a child of her age and her social age is only of a 9
month old child – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded
Rs.11,08,501/- and held that since there was violation of terms of
policy, the insurance company would pay the amount but would be
entitled to recover the same from the owner – High Court enhanced
it to Rs.25,78,501/- – On appeal, held: Injuries cause deprivation
to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages – Damages
may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the
claimant in an accident – Compensation should neither be assessed
very conservatively, nor assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to
make it a bounty to the claimant – Court while assessing the
compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and
the loss caused by such deprivation – Such compensation is what is
termed as just compensation – Rs.62,27,000/- is awarded to the
claimant, inter alia under expenses relating to treatment;
hospitalization and transportation; loss of earnings (family
members); loss of future earnings; pain, suffering & loss of
amenities etc., with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of
the claim petition till payment of the amount – Insurance company
entitled to adjust the amount already paid and to recover the amount
from the owner in terms of the award of MACT, which was not
challenged either before High Court or Supreme Court – Amount
awarded is more than the amount claimed – In motor accident claim
petitions, the Court must award just compensation and, in case, the
just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be
awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 622
622
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
623
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Minor Claimant – Compensation
– Guidelines for investment of – Discussed.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Grant of interest
– Held: Normally interest should be granted from the date of filing
of the petition and if in appeal enhancement is made the interest
should again be from the date of filing of the petition– Only if the
appeal is filed after an inordinate delay by the claimants, or the
decision of the case has been delayed on account of negligence of
the claimant, in such exceptional cases the interest may be awarded
from a later date – While doing so, the tribunals/High Courts must
give reasons why interest is not being paid from the date of filing of
the petition.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation etc.
Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the
claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to
the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident.
On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential
losses such as (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which
may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet,
attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of
life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future
earning capacity. Damages can be pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise. The
court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to
compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On
the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very
conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also
not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty
to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation
should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss
caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed
as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed
for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the
injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout
his/her life. They should not be just token damages. [Paras 5,
6][629-D-H]
KAJAL v. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS.

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