LexSAPNA versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 791
....,,
SAP NA
A
v.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.3575 Of 2008)
MAY 14, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.)
t
'1"
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Motor vehicle accident - Permanent disability - A minor
girl suffering from - Just & fair compensation - Held: Prin- c
ciple of Restitutio-in-integrum applies in a case of this nature
- While awarding compensation in case of bodily injury to in-
sured, tribunal should consider all relevant factors so as to
put insured in the position as if he had not sustained any in-
;ury - Though the High Court had referred to the likely effect D
,+
of the disability suffered by the injured on her matrimonial pros-
pects but due regard in that regard had not been given - In
order to determine the just & fair amount of compensation due
regard should be given to the facts & circumstances of the
case - The courts may deviate from the structural formula in E
terms of Schedule II of the Act, while determining compensa-
tion - In absence of any clear cut estimate of necessary future
treatment, Supreme Court is inclined to award a sum of
~ Rs. 75, 0001- for further treatment of the victim in addition to the
j
sum awarded by the tribunal as compensation and enhanced F
by the High Court - Tribunal is directed to invest the sum so
awarded in a fixed deposit till the victim attains majority and to
release the amount as & when required - Directions issued.
Doctrines/Principles:
Principle of Restitutio-in-integrum - Applicability of
G
....
j
Appellant, a 12 years old girl suffered a permanent
disability in motor vehicle accident. She was taken to a
hospital, a sum of Rs.4:J,OOOI- spent for her treatment and
791
H
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 8 S.C.R.
A she was required to undergo further treatment.. She filed 'r·
a claim petition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.82,569/
- as compensation with 8% simple interest thereupon. In
appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to
Rs.2,00,000/- reducing the rate of interest to 6%. Hence,
B the present appeal.
Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that
the Tribunal as also the High Court committed a serious
f
-<('
error in passing the impugned awards insofar as they
failed to take into consideration that having regard to the
C nature of injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident,
not only her education has come to an end but also her
future matrimonial prospects are also adversely affected
and, thus, she was entitled to a higher amount of com-
pensation; and that even for the purpose of future treat-
D ment, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-would be required; and con-
sidering the provisions contained in the Schedule II to the :+.
Motor Vehicles Act and furthermore having regard to the
mental agony suffered by the appellant, the amount of
compensation should be enhanced.
E
Respondent submitted that the loss has to be deter-
mined as on the date of the accident; even the amount of
future treatment should be determined as on the date of
the award; and that the appellant, admittedly, did not have
any income and in that view of the matter the award of the 1
F Tribunal and the High Court should not be interfered with.
1
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The principles governing a claim petition for
assessing the damages in case of bodily injury suffered is
G that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal should
consider all relevant factors so as to enable the insured to A-.
be put in the same position as if he lhad not sustained any
injury. The principle of Restitutio-in-integrum may be ap-
plied in a case of this nature. Pecuniary loss and non-pecu-
H niary loss are required to be pressed under certain heads.
I
> •
SAPNA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
793
&ANR.
So far as the pecuniary loss is concerned, the same can be. A
ascertained. What is required to be done is a balancing act
by awarding such sum which, on the one hand, shall take
care of the loss suffered by the claimant for the present time
and future pecuniary benefits and, on the other, pecuniary
advantages which from whatever source comes to them by B
reason of such injuries. So far as non-pecuniary loss is
concerned, the same has to be assessed broadly under
certain heads, namely, damages for physical pain, mental
suffering etc. besides the amount spent on medical treat-
ment, if any. [Para 8] [7960F,G,H, 797-A,B]
c
1.2 ExpeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.