LexSMT. V. SUDHA versus P. GANAPATHI BHAT & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 1093 SMT. V. SUDHA V. P. GANAPATHI BHAT & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4340 of 2013) MAY 6, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss.168 & 173 - Just Compensation - Grant of- Towards future medical expenses A B - Appellant, aged about 36 years, hit by motorcycle driven C by respondent no. 1 - Admitted in Hospital, and treated by PW2, Orthopaedic Surgeon - Serious physical impairment in left leg of appellant - Claim petition by appellant for compensation of Rs.3,50,0001- - MACT awarded amount of Rs.1,94,3501- with interest@ 8% p.a from the date of petition D - High Court enhanced the award to Rs.2,65,0001- - Plea of appellant that future medical expenses and necessary treatment were not considered adequately by the High Court - Appellant claimed that she needed to undergo hip replacement surgery which could cost Rs.2 lakhs - Held: E Tribunal is required to determine the amount of compensation 'which appears to it to be just' - Compensation should, to the extent possible fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident - On facts, High Court awarded only Rs.15,0001- towards·future medical expenses- F It lost sight of the statement of PW2 that to minimize persistent disablement, the appellant needed to undergo femoral head excision and Bipolar Hemi-arthoplasty which would cost more than Rs.90,0001- - Corroborative evidence given by PW2 accepted, and amount as reflected in his evidence added - F This would add an amount of Rs. 75, 0001- to the compensation awarded by the High Court which takes it to a figure of Rs. 3, 40, 0001 - Further, since, PW2 said that the expenses could be more than Rs. 90, 0001- but did not specify 1093 H 1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A how much would be that amount, further amount of Rs.10,0001 - added to make it Rs.3,50,0001- and thus fully allow the claim of the appellant. The appellant, aged about 36 years sustained 8 grievous injuries in a road accident when a motorcycle driven by respondent no.1 came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against her. The motorcycle was insured with respondent no.2-National Insurance Company. The appellant was admitted in Hospital, where she was treated by PW2, Orthopaedic C Surgeon. PW2 opined that there was serious physical impairment in the left leg of the appellant. Referring to the future treatment which was expected for the appellant, PW2 stated that to minimize the persistent disablement, the appellant needed to undergo femoral head excision D and Bipolar Hemi-arthoplasty which would cost more than Rs.90,000/-. The appellant filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. Though the appellant had claimed her E monthly income in the range of Rs.6000/- to Rs.7000/- but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal took it as Rs.3000/- and awarded an amount of Rs.1,94,350/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition. On appeal, the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to F Rs.2,65,000/-. In the instant appeal, the appellant submitted that the future medical expenses and necessary treatment were not considered adequately by the High Court. The appellant claimed that she needed to undergo hip G replacement surgery which could cost Rs.2 lakhs. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1. Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle H Act, the Tribunal passes its award requires the Tribunal V. SUDHA v. P. GANAPATHI BHAT 1095 to determine the amount of compensation 'which A appears to it to be just'. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that the compensation should, to the extent possible fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. [Para 13] [1101-D-E; 1101- B G-H; 1102-A] 1.2. In the present case, the evidence of the doctor tendered in the Tribunal stated that the future treatment would cost more than Rs.90,000/-. This corroborating C evidence has not been contravented. The High Court however awarded only an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses. It lost sight of the statement of the doctor that to minimize the persistent disablement the appellant needed to undergo femoral head excision and Bipolar Hemi-arthoplasty which would cost more than D Rs,90,000/-. In view of the same, the corroborative evidence given by the doctor is accepted, a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.