PAPPU DEO YADAV versus NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 968 · Decided: 17-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
PAPPU DEO YADAV
v.
NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 17, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, KRISHNA MURARI AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Motor accident – Of 20 year old man who was working as a
data entry operator/ typist – Disability (amputation of right upper
limb) of the victim was ascertained as 89% – Claim for compensation
– Claims Tribunal assessing physical disability of the victim to be
45% and taking his income to be Rs. 8000/- PM added 50% towards
future prospects and awarded compensation of Rs. 14,25,400/- –
High Court, in appeal doing away with addition to 50% towards
future prospects reassessed the compensation for loss of earning
capacity at Rs. 7,77,600/- – However, compensation amount was
enhanced to Rs. 14,36,600 by enhancing the compensation under
other heads – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The disability was
wrongly assessed as 45% – The severity of loss of a limb should be
judged in relation to profession, vocation or business of the victim
– There cannot be blind arithmetic formula for ready application –
The claimant being a data entry operator/ typist, loss of an arm
resulted in severe income earning impairment – However, since he
still had another arm and since is young, the extent of his disability
is assessed at 65% – High Court also erred in holding that
compensation for future prospects in cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement could not be awarded – The
claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects @
40% – Claimants assertion about earning Rs. 12,000/- PM should
not have been discarded by Courts below – His income per month
is taken as Rs. 10,000/- – Considering the enhancement towards
loss of earning capacity and future prospects, compensation is
modified to Rs. 19,65,600/- in place of Rs. 7,77,600/- awarded by
High Court – Assessment of amounts payable under other heads is
upheld.
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 968
968
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
969
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1.1 Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not
only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but
too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim.
The attendant trauma of the victim’s having to live in a world
entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid,
and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete
personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge’s
mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe
limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity
(which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right
to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person
of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he
had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim
is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting
and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts
oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the
injured victim. [Para 22][996-B-D]
1.2 This court has emphasized time and again that “just
compensation” should include all elements that would go to place
the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the
occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other
material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering
that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the
loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known
to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to
those who survive, and the victims who have to face their
lives.[Para 8][977-C-D]
Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited
(2012) 6 SCC 421 : [2012] 3 SCR 1178 – relied on.
2.1 The factual narrative discloses that the appellant, a 20-
year-old data entry operator (who had studied up to 12th standard)
incurred permanent disability, i.e. loss of his right hand (which
was amputated). The disability was assessed to be 89%. However,
the Tribunal and the High Court re-assessed the disability to be
only 45%, on the assumption that the assessment for
compensation was to be on a different basis, as the injury entailed
PAPPU DEO YADAV v. NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
970
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
loss of only one arm. This approach is completely mechanical and
entirely ignores realities. Whilst it is true that 

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