LexSRI. BENSON GEORGE versus RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 653 [2022] 1 S.C.R. 653 653 SRI. BENSON GEORGE v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022) FEBRUARY 25, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Compensation – In a motor accident, claimant aged 29 years sustained grievous brain injury – He underwent brain surgeries – Even after discharge from hospital, he remained in coma – At the time of accident, he was working in bank and earning Rs. 4,59,425 p.a. – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 94.37 lacs along with interest @ 9% P.A. – Both insurance company and the claimant filed appeals before High Court – High Court partly allowed the appeal of claimant and enhanced compensation from Rs. 94.37 lacs to Rs. 1.24 crores, however, reduced interest from 9% to 6% P.A – Claimant still aggrieved filed instant appeal – Grievance of claimant was that award of Rs. 2 lacs under the head ‘pain and suffering’ and Rs. one lac under the head ‘loss of amenities and happiness’ was not sufficient – Held: Considering the prolonged hospitalization and medical treatment and the claimant having undergone multiple surgeries and still in coma and bedridden, High Court erred in awarding Rs.2,00,000/- only under the head ‘pain, shock and suffering’ – Amount of compensation under this head enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- – Similarly, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the High Court under the head ‘loss of amenities and happiness’ can also be said to be on lower side – No amount can compensate the loss of amenities and happiness more particularly a person who is in coma since number of years and is bedridden for the entire life – In facts and circumstances of the case, if amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities and happiness’ is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- from that of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the High Court, it can be said to be a reasonable amount under the head loss of amenities and happiness – However, as regards the interest rate, no interference made. A B C D E F G H 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The pain, suffering and trauma suffered by the claimant cannot be compensated in terms of the money. However, still it will be a solace to award suitable compensation under different heads including the pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness of life. In the facts and circumstances of the case due to the prolonged hospitalization and the multiple brain injuries/injuries sustained by the claimant and that he is still in coma and is bedridden, if the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- it can be said to be a reasonable amount under the head pain, shock and suffering. [Paras 7, 7.1][658-G-H; 659-A-B] 1.2 Similarly, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the High Court under the head loss of amenities and happiness can also be said to be on lower side. No amount can compensate the loss of amenities and happiness more particularly a person who is in coma since number of years and is bedridden for the entire life. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the amount of compensation under the head loss of amenities and happiness is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- from that of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the High Court, it can be said to be a reasonable amount under the head loss of amenities and happiness. [Para 7.2][659-B-D] Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179; Lalan D. alias Lal and Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2020) 9 SCC 805 – referred to. 2. Now so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the amount of interest from 9% to 6% per annum is concerned, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. [Para 8.2][660-B-C] Case Law Reference [2010] 13 SCR 179 referred to Para 4.1 (2020) 9 SCC 805 referred to Para 4.3 A B C D E F G H 655 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2020 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA No.3183 of 2018 (MV). Rohan Thawani, Karunakar Mahalik, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Prerna Mehta, Adv. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.09
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.