SANJAY VERMA versus HARYANA ROADWAYS

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 924 · Decided: 29-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 924 
SANJAY VERMA 
V. 
HARYANA ROADWAYS 
(Civil Appeal No. 5256 of 2008) 
JANUARY 29, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. RANJAN GOGOi AND SHIVA 
KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act .. 1988: s.166 - Just compensation -
C Accident victim suffered paralysis below waist and could not 
perform his day to day needs such as latrine and urination 
on his own and required one person throughout his life to look 
after him - Tribunal awarded Rs. 3 Lacs under the heads ''loss 
of income''. "reimbursement of medical expenses" and ''pain 
D and suffering" - On appeal, High Court adopted multiplier of 
15 and quantified the amount towards "loss of income" at 
Rs. 6, 19, 5001- considering that he was self employed person 
and at the time of accident his annual income as per /TR was 
Rs.41,300; Rs.1,38,5521- on account of "medical expenses" 
E and Rs. 50, 0001- "for future treatment" and ''pain and suffering" 
- On appeal, held: High court was right in taking annual 
income of claimant at Rs.41,300 - Considering the age of the 
claimant (25 years) and the fact that he had a steady income, 
an addition of 50% to the income that he was earning at the 
F time of accident would be justified for determining loss of 
income - Further, appropriate multiplier would be 17 - The two 
heads of compensation "future treatment" and "pain and 
suffering" are distinct and different and cannot be clubbed 
together, therefore, the two heads are to be severed -
G Considering that claimant is likely to suffer considerable pain 
throughout his life, he is awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,0001- on 
account of ''pain and suffering" - As regards "future treatment", 
the claim made before the Tribunal for an amount of 
H 
924 
SANJAY VERMA v. HARYANA ROADWAYS 
925 
Rs.2,00,0001- being the cost of attendant from the date of A 
accident till he remains alive is justified - High Court's finding 
as regards compensation under the head 'medical expenses' 
is maintained - Thus, claimant is awarded enhanced 
compensation of Rs.19.91 lacs in all. 
The appellant-claimant was travelling in a bus 
/ 
belonging to the respondent. The bus met with an 
B 
accident as the driver lost control of the bus resulting in 
multiple injuries to the appellant including fracture of 
spinal cord which resulted in paralysis of his whole body. C 
The appellant filed a claim petition before the MACT 
claiming compensation of Rs.53 lacs. The Tribunal 
awarded Rs.3 Lacs under the heads "loss of income", 
"reimbursement of medical expenses" and "pain and 
suffering" and interest @ 9% from the date of claim 
petition. On appeal, the High Court quantified the amount D 
towards "loss of income" at Rs.6, 19,500/-; Rs.1,38,552/-
on account of "medical expenses" and an amount of 
Rs.50,000/- "for future treatment" and "pain and 
suffering". The High Court, however, reduced the interest 
payable to 6% per annum. Aggrieved, the appellant filed E 
the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The evidence tendered by the doctor PW-
1 was to the effect that the appellant had become cenl F 
percent paralyzed and was unable to perform his day to 
day needs such as latrine and urination on his own. A 
tube was inserted into his urinary tract along with a bag 
which he had to use entire life and there would be no 
control over his toilet and urine which he might have G 
· been doing on his bed. He would not be able to move 
throughout his life due to the paralysis below waist. The 
materials on record established that the age of the 
claimant at the time of the accident was 25 years and he 
• 
H 
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
was married. The age of his wife was 22 years at that time. 
The claimant had one son who was 1112 years of age. 
Apart from that the deposition of the claimant himself 
(PW-2) showed that after the accident he was not able to 
do any work and one person was always needed to look 
s 
after him. [Para 8, 9] [931-H; 932-C-D; 933-B-C] 
2. The appellant was a self employed person. 
Though he had claimed a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, 
the Income Tax Returns filed by him demonstrated that 
he had paid income tax on an annual income of 
C 
Rs.41,300. No fault, therefore, is found in the order of the 
High Court which proceeded on the basis that the annual 
income of the claimant at the time of the accident was 
Rs.41,300/-. [Para 11] [933-E-F] 
D 
E 
F 
3. A person who is on a fixed salary without provision 
for annual increments or who is self

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