Supreme Court of India
Chandramani Nanda vs Sarat Chandra Swain on 15 October, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, J.K. Maheshwari
2024 INSC 777 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ……………. OF 2024
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 3050 of 2023)
CHANDRAMANI NANDA … Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SARAT CHANDRA SWAIN AND ANOTHER … Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The claimant, in a motor vehicle accident having suffered
injuries, has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation. He is aggrieved by the order 1 passed by the High
Court2.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2024.10.15
17:45:22 IST
Reason:
1
Dated 24.08.2022 in MACA No.256 of 2019
2
High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Page 1 of 14
3. The facts as available on record are that on 16.01.2014 four
persons occupying Verito Vibe Car bearing Registration No.OD-05-D-
9596 were travelling from Sambalpur, Odisha to Cuttack. At about
01:30 pm, the offending Bus bearing Registration No.OD-14-A-1774
being driven at high speed struck against the said car on NH-55 near
CPP Chawk, NALCO, Anugul, Odisha, as a result of which the
occupants of the car suffered serious injuries. One of the occupants,
Ranjan Rout, succumbed to the injuries on 31.05.2017. A police case
bearing P.S. Case No.7/2014 was registered against the driver of the
offending bus under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC3. Three injured
occupants of the car and the legal heirs of the deceased, Ranjan Rout
filed different claim petitions, which were assigned to the Court of 2nd
Additional District Judge-cum-3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Cuttack. The present appellant had filed petition4 claiming
compensation of ₹30,00,000/-. As all the claims had arisen from the
same accident the Tribunal clubbed all the claim petitions and decided
the same by a common Award 5.
3
Indian Penal Code
4
MAC Case No.176 of 2014
5
Dated 15.01.2019
Page 2 of 14
4. A perusal of the said Award passed by the Tribunal shows
that registered owner of the offending bus did not appear despite
service, hence, was proceeded against ex parte. The Insurance
Company6 contested the claim petitions. The Tribunal framed the
following issues:
“(i) Whether the claim applications are
maintainable?
(ii) Whether due to rash and/or negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing
registration No.OD-14-A-1774 the accident took
place and in that accident deceased namely Ranjan
Rout succumbed to injuries and other petitioners
namely Dipti Ranjan Pattanayak, Santosh Baral, and
Chandramani Nanda sustained injuries on their
persons?
(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get
the compensation and if so, what would be the
extent?
(iv) Whether both the Opposite Parties or
either of them are/is liable to pay the compensation?
and
(v) To what other relief/s, if any, the
respective petitioners are entitled?”
6
National Insurance Company Limited
Page 3 of 14
5. The Issue No.(ii) was decided in favour of the claimants. As
far as entitlement of compensation is concerned, the claim of the
present appellant was discussed under para ‘13’ of the Award of the
Tribunal. The evidence led to the effect that he sustained head injury,
which was grievous in nature. The claimant was initially admitted in
Angul Government Hospital and due to his serious condition, he was
shifted to Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack for better treatment and remained
admitted there from 16.01.2014 to 11.02.2014. During that period, he
had undergone a major brain surgery. The mother of the appellant in
her statement stated that due to the accident, her son (appellant) had
become mentally unsound. He is not able to understand anything and
is bedridden since then.
5.1 The appellant visited Ashwini Hospital for his follow up after
surgery on 17.06.2014, 15.09.2014 and 25.07.2015. It was claimed that
the mother of the appellant spent about ₹15,00,000/- on his treatment,
which is still going on. However, total bills produced towards medical
expenses were to the tune of ₹3,31,153/-. The aforesaid amount was
awarded by the Tribunal. The Record Keeper of the Ashwini Hospital
was also summoned in evidence who proved the medical record of the
appellant, which mentioned that he had sustained grievous head injury
fracture of C6 and T4 vertebra. He also produced the medical bills.
Page 4 of 14
6. As far as the employment of the appellant is concerned, it
was claimed that at the relevant point of time he was working as Branch
Manager in Padma Infrastructure Private Limited and was earning
salary of ₹22,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal referring to
Income Tax return of the appellant (Ext.15)7 assessed the income at
₹1,62,420/- per annum for the assessment year 2011-12 and that was
made the basis for awarding compensation. His disability was assessed
by the District Medical Board, Jagatsinghpur (Ext.13), according to
which he was declared to be disabled to the extent of 60%. It is
pertinent to note that the aforesaid assessment of disability of the
appellant was conducted 02 years after the accident, meaning thereby,
the disability was subsisting. It was claimed that on account of 60%
disability suffered by the appellant, he had suffered 100% functional
disability because of brain injury suffered by him. However, the
Tribunal assessed the disability and loss in earning capacity only to the
extent of 60%.
7. The age of the appellant was about 32 years at the time of
the accident. Since the appellant fell in the age group between 31 to
35, multiplier 16 was applied for assessment of compensation,
7
Inadvertently, recorded as Ext. 16 in the High Court and Tribunal’s order.
Page 5 of 14
referring to the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and
others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another8.
8. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal, in addition
to the loss of future income calculated at 60% disability, awarded
₹50,000/- on account of mental agony, pain and suffering, and loss of
amenities, and further awarded ₹1,00,000/- for future medical
expenses. The total compensation assessed was as under:
Head Amount (in ₹)
Loss of future income 15,59,232/-
(₹1,62,420 x 16 x 60/100)
Past medical expenditure including 3,51,153/-
cost of medicine, special diet & the
attendant
Mental agony, pain, suffering and 50,000/-
loss of amenities
Future medical expenses 1,00,000/-
Total 20,60,385/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum
9. Aggrieved against the said award of the Tribunal, the
present appellant as well as the Insurance Company preferred
appeals 9 before the High Court. The High Court opined that the
appellant had suffered 100% functional disability as against 60%
assessed by the Tribunal because even if the disability from persistent
8
(2009) 6 SCC 121, [2009] 5 SCR 1098, 2009 INSC 506
9
MACA No.256 of 2019 by the appellant and MACA No.350 of 2021 by the Insurance Company
Page 6 of 14
neurocognitive is 60%, such disability entails 100% loss of earning
capacity. The High Court modified the Award of the Tribunal and
enhanced the amount of compensation from ₹20,60,385/- to
₹30,99,873/-.
Head Compensation
(in ₹)
Loss of future income 25,98,720/-
(₹ 1,62,420 x 16 x 100%
disability)
Medical Expenditure 3,51,153/-
Mental agony and suffering 50,000/-
Future medical expenses 1,00,000/-
Total 30,99,873/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum
10 In the present SLP, the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal as well
as the High Court have failed to appreciate that the income claimed by
appellant was ₹22,000/- per month i.e. ₹2,64,000/- per annum.
However, the assessment of compensation was made by taking the
income at ₹1,62,420/- per annum, which pertained to assessment year
2011-12 i.e. financial year 2010-11. It is to be noted that the accident
had taken place on 16.01.2014, i.e. after 02 years from the said financial
year.
Page 7 of 14
10.1 It was further submitted that the amount of compensation
should be enhanced by including factor of future prospect as it has not
been considered by the Tribunal and High Court. Further, he should
be awarded enhanced compensation under the head of future medical
expenses as he would be required to incur medical expenses on a
regular basis, and should also be granted compensation for an
attendant.
10.2 Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that
compensation on account of mental agony, pain and suffering and loss
of amenities as assessed by the Tribunal is also on lower side as the
appellant will undergo pain and suffering due to injuries and will go
through mental agony throughout his life on account of brain injury.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company submitted that the assessment of compensation by the High
Court is on the higher side. There is no scope of further enhancement
specially keeping in view the fact that the appellant had claimed a sum
of ₹30,00,000/- as compensation, and the High Court has already
awarded more than that. However, still being reasonable, the
Insurance Company did not prefer any appeal.
Page 8 of 14
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant materials on record.
13. For the purpose of clarification, the High Court enhanced
the compensation to Rs. 30,99,873 from Rs. 20,60,385 as awarded by
Tribunal. This was done by considering the functional disability at
100% as opposed to 60%, as assessed by the Tribunal.
14. On the issue of assessment of income, we are of the view
that that an enhanced income should be considered for calculation of
compensation. In this regard, the appellant has produced on record his
income tax returns for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 as
Exhibits 14 and 15, respectively. As per the records, for the
assessment year 2010-11 (the financial year will be 2009-10), the
income shown by the appellant was to the tune of ₹1,65,100/-. For the
assessment year 2011-12 (the financial year will be 2010-11), the
income was shown as ₹1,77,400/-. Further, as per the Salary Certificate
Exhibit-22 placed on record by the appellant, he was working as
Branch Manager for Padma Infrastructure and he was getting a
consolidated salary of ₹22,000 one year prior to the date of accident.
Now, it is to be noted that the accident took place on 16.01.2014, in the
financial year 2013-14. If we calculate the annual income considering
₹22,000, it would come out to ₹2,64,000/- per annum. However, as per
Page 9 of 14
the High Court and the Tribunal, the annual income is assessed at
₹1,62,420/-. However, both the courts below failed to consider the fact
that there is a gap of approximately 02 years and 09 months between
the said income tax returns and the date of accident. It can be seen that
the income of the appellant, based on the income tax returns so
produced on record is progressive, there is a possibility that he may
have left his business and join service to improve his income. Thus, in
our view, it would be reasonable to take the income of the appellant at
₹2,00,000/- per annum, i.e., ₹16,666.67 per month.
14.1 With respect to the multiplier, we do not find any error in
the order passed by the High Court applying the multiplier of 16
considering the age of the appellant as 32 years on the date of the
accident.
14.2 On the point of assessment of functional disability as 100%
by the High Court as against 60% by the Tribunal, there is no challenge
by the insurance company.
14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed
to consider the fact that the appellant is also entitled for enhancement
on account of future prospects. Hence, in line with the law laid down in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Page 10 of 14
Others10, given the age of appellant was 32 years at the time of
accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects.
15. As far as award of amount on account of medical
expenditure is concerned, we do not find any case to be made out for
further enhancement, as the amount awarded is in tune with the bills
placed by the appellant on record.
16. Coming to the compensation under the head of attendant,
Tribunal awarded a meagre sum of ₹10,000/-. While this amount may
have been awarded considering the cost of attendant charges incurred
during the period of appellant’s treatment, as he remained admitted in
hospital for 25 days and had to undergo surgery post initial operation
as well. However, now, considering the fact of mental disability to be
suffered by appellant, who is now around 40 years old and the age of
the mother who is above 60 years old, and will be appellant’s primary
caretaker, we are of the opinion that a reasonable amount for future
attendant charges should also be awarded to the appellant.
17. In this regard, we have perused the statement of the
appellant’s mother (PW-3). As per her statement, initially they had
engaged an attendant at ₹6,000 per month. However, he had left his
10
(2017) 16 SCC 680, [2017] SCR 100, 2017 INSC 1068
Page 11 of 14
services about a month before the mother was cross-examined on 23rd
September, 2016. Further, the appellant’s father works as a priest and
have a meagre monthly income. Thus, it is the appellant’s mother and
other family members who are taking care of him. Considering the
aforesaid facts, in our opinion, a lump sum amount of ₹1,00,000/- is
reasonable and deserves to be awarded to the appellant on account of
future attendant charges.
18. In addition to the above, appellant is also entitled to
compensation on account of loss of marriage prospects. A perusal of
the impugned award of the Tribunal and the High Court shows that
nothing has been awarded to the appellant under this head. In our
opinion, considering the law laid down by this Court on this issue, the
appellant deserves to be awarded a sum of ₹1,00,000/- on this account.
19. Further, in our view, a compensation of ₹50,000/- on
account of pain and suffering is also on lower side and the same
deserves to be enhanced to ₹1,00,000/-. It is for the reason that on
account of the injury suffered, the appellant has become mentally
unstable, having disability of 60%, which indeed has resulted in 100%
functional disability.
Page 12 of 14
20. An argument is raised by learned counsel for the insurance
company that the appellant has initially claimed a sum of ₹30,00,000/-
and since the same having been awarded to him by the High Court, no
further enhancement is possible. We cannot accept this argument and
it is duly rejected. It is a settled proportion of law, that the amount of
compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court
to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and
reasonable. It is the duty of the Court to assess fair compensation.
Rough calculation made by the claimant is not a bar or the upper limit.
Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court in
the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto 11.
21. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is allowed
and the compensation awarded to the appellant is assessed in the
following terms:
Head Compensation
(in ₹)
Annual Income 2,00,000
Annual Income after Future 2,80,000
Prospects @ 40%
Loss of future income (₹2,80,000 x 44,80,000
16 x 100% disability)
Medical Expenditure 3,51,153
Future Attendant Cost 1,00,000
11
(2023) 1 SCC 204, [2022] 18 SCR 449, 2022 INSC 1080
Page 13 of 14
Loss of marriage prospects 1,00,000
Pain and suffering 1,00,000
Future medical expenses 1,00,000
Total 52,31,153
22. The total amount of compensation is rounded off to
₹52,31,000/-. The appellant will be entitled to get interest on the
enhanced compensation at the rate of 6% as awarded by the High
Court.
23. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms
while modifying the order of the High Court. Pending interlocutory
applications (if any) shall stand disposed of.
……………….……………..J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
New Delhi
October 15, 2024.
Page 14 of 14