LexMUTHAIAH SEKHAR versus NESAMONY TPT. CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·-:--
MUTHAIAH SEKHAR
A
v.
NESAMONY TPT. CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
IK. VENKATASWAMI AND AP. MISRA, JJ.]
B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 :
Motor accident---{;ompensatio11-Quantwn of-Passenger travelling i11
a taxi was hit by a bu.1-He sustained seven i11jwies i11cluding pennanent C
dislocation of 1ight !zip, loss of 60% vision in left eye and loss of 50% heari11g
i11 left cw-At the time of accident he was aged 25years a11d, after practising
as a lal~)'CI" for some time, he had joined ML course-Due to lack of proper
treatment facility in India, he u11dcnvent treatment at New York-Accide11t
Claims Tribunal, after estimating his i1zco111e as Rs. 1,000 per 1iw11th at that
time, awarded a compe11satio11 of Rs. I, 76,00(}-Held, Jn the circumstances D
of the case, the victim 1101 given just compensatio11-Hence, a11 additional
rnm of Rs. 3 laklzs awarded by Supreme Cowt a11d the enhanced amount of
compensation to bear interest @ 12'1r1 p.a. from the date of claim petitio11 till
the date of payment-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The appellant was travelling in a taxi, which was hit by a bus belong-
ing to the respondent-Corporation. The appellant sustained seven injuries
including permanent dislocation of right_ hip, loss of 60% vision in left eye
and loss of 50% hearing in left ear. At the time of accident the appellant
was aged 25 years and, after practising as a lawyer, he had joined the ML
course. As there was no proper treatment facility in India, the appellant
underwent treatment in New York.
E
F
The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 5,06,091 as compensation. However, the
Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,76,000 after estimating the
appellant's income as a legal practitioner at that stage to be about Rs.1,000 G
per month. The High Court confirmed the award. Hence this appeal.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
HELD: 1. In the facts of the case, the appellant was not given the just
compensation to which he was entitled. Hence, an additional sum of Rs. 3 H
225
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A lakhs is awarded in addition to that awarded by the Tribunal. This en-
hanced amount of compensation will bear interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. [231-B]
Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF, [i997] 11 SCC 446, relied on.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13391 of
c
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.90 of the Kerala High
Court in M.F.A. No 712 of 1990.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 13385 of 1996.
P.S. Poti and Ms. Malini Poduval for the Appellant.
D
A. Mariarputham for the M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. VENKATASWAMI, J. Civil Appeal No. 13391186:
E
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal at the admission stage, the
appellant, who sustained serious injuries in a motor accident that took
place on 10.8.84, has preferred this appeal.
The appellant along with his mother, brother and sister-in-law were
travelling in a taxi from Nagarcoil to Trivandrum on 10.8.84. A bus,
F belonging to the respondent-Corporation coming from the opposite direc-
tion, dashed against the taxi while trying to overtake a bullock cart, result-
ing in the death of the Driver and the appellant's mother. The other
occupants including the appellant sustained injuries. The appellant moved
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum, claiming a sum of
G Rs.5,06,091 as compensation. At the time of accident, he was aged about
25 years and after practising as a Lawyer for some time, applied for and
secured a seat in the Madras University for pursuing his M.L. course. He
sustained in all seven injuries including dislocation of right hip, head injury
and injury to the left eye and ear. Initially, he was admitted to the Medical
college Hospital, Trivandrum, for treatment and after being discharged
H therefrom, he was admitted again to the Madras General Hospital for
----: .•
MUTHAIAH SEKHAR v. NESAMONY TPT. CORPN. LID. [K. VENKATASWAMI. J.j 227
further treatment. It was the claim of the appellant that he was to be A
. tr~ted.rfor the left carotid cavernous fistula; a condition which required
the treatment of balloon embolisation. According to the appellant, the said
treatment was not available in India and his brother, who was a practising
Doctor at New York, United States, askExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.