Legally Bharat

Supreme Court of India

K.S. Muralidhar vs R. Subbulakshmi on 22 November, 2024

Author: Sanjay Karol

Bench: Sanjay Karol, C.T. Ravikumar

                                                                                     REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 886
                                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                         CIVIL APPEAL NO………….OF 2024
                                          (Arising out of SLP(C)No.18337/2021)


             K.S. MURALIDHAR                                                      … APPELLANT(S)


                                                          VERSUS


             R. SUBBULAKSHMI & ANR.                                              … RESPONDENT(S)




                                                    JUDGMENT

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave granted.

2. The concept of just compensation rests on the principle of restitutio ad

integrum which means restoration to the original condition, as far as possible,

taking the person to whom damages are awarded, to a position as if the incident

or in this case, the accident, had never occurred. While this is a well-recognized

and positive principle of law, we must also recognize its limitations. The award

of compensation, however much it may be, does not give back to the person who
Signature Not Verified

affected their life but only alleviates the worry of being able to secure the required
Digitally signed by Dr.
Naveen Rawal
Date: 2024.11.22
13:57:25 IST
Reason:

amenities.

1| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021

3. In awarding non-pecuniary damages, this Court has often highlighted the

difficulty in computation, for there is no manner in which such determination

lends itself to formulaic ciphering. Every person in life has undertaken certain

steps towards the realization of dreams, held goals and aspirations, and when they

land up in such an unfortunate situation, where, for no fault of theirs, the

trajectories of their lives are forever altered. Although, abstract in the written

word, these factors form a large part of the ‘pain and suffering’ one undergoes

apart from the manifested disability, which may be visible to another person.

4. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 12th November

2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in M.F.A.No.2573 of

2016 (MV). This Miscellaneous First Appeal, in turn, was filed against the Award

dated 17th April 2015 passed in M.V.C. No.3955 of 2009 by the Court of IX

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Small Causes Court, at Bangalore.1

5. Certain past events require recall for adjudication of the present dispute.

5.1 On 22nd August 2008, the appellant was travelling in his Company

vehicle, bearing registration No. KA-02-D-9626, towards his place of

employment, situated at Kasaba Industrial Area, Hoskote. On the way, the

vehicle collided with a container lorry bearing registration No.TN-04-D-

1047, which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently.

1
hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’

2| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021
5.2 The injuries sustained were to the extent of 90% permanent

disability (as per the case put forward by the claimant-appellant before the

Tribunal), i.e.,

“1. Fracture co-vertebra with anterior dislocation over C7

2. Cervical Spine revealed dislocation of C-6 over C-7.
C-7 Bilateral transverse process fracture and

3. C-6 fracture both laminae and body.”

5.3 The Hoskote Police have registered a case bearing Crime No.414 of

2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the

Indian Penal Code, 18602, against the driver of the lorry.

5.4 It was contended before the Tribunal that the claimant-appellant was

employed as a workman in L.M. Glassfibre (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hoskote,

earning a gross salary of Rs.28,221/- per month. Apart from being so

employed, he was also an agent with the Life Insurance Corporation of India

earning an annual commission between Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per

annum.

5.5 Having heard arguments, the Tribunal framed two issues, one

relating to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and the second regarding

the quantum of compensation and by whom it will be payable.

5.6 The Tribunal3 concluded that the lorry was indeed being driven

rashly and negligently and qua compensation it was held that respondent

2
IPC for short
3
It is to be noted that this determination of compensation was made after the High Court remitted the matter vide
order dated 12th August 2014 for consideration afresh, on appeal from award dated 10 th February 2011 passed by
the IXth Additional Senior Civil Judge, member, MACT-7, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore

3| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021
No.2 therein (New India Assurance Company Limited) would be liable to

pay a sum of Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest per annum on the above said

sum (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-) from the date of

Petition till payment.

6. Aggrieved by the order, both, the Insurance Company and the claimant-

appellant, approached the High Court.

6.1 The Court held that the Tribunal had rightly taken functional

disability to be 100% and was correct in not deducting compensation of

Rs.6,61,371/- paid by his employer to the claimant-appellant.

6.2 On the aspect of loss of future income, it was held that the claimant-

appellant, since he was below the age of 40, was entitled to 40% under this

head. The amount was calculated to be Rs.70,22,520/-. In conclusion,

considering other heads as well, the amount of compensation arrived at was

a total of Rs.78,16,390/- as opposed to Rs.58,09,930/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

6.3 The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount within

four weeks, excluding interest, for the compensation awarded under the

heading future medical expenses. The interest rate was maintained at 6%.

7. Further, aggrieved by the final judgment and order of the High Court, the

claimant-appellant is before us.

4| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021

8. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel

for the claimant-appellant, that :-

(i) The High Court erred in taking future prospects at @ 40% instead

of 50% in accordance with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

Sethi4;

(ii) Under the head ‘pain and suffering’, the compensation awarded by

the High Court is insufficient given the 100% functional disability.

In arguing that the compensation should be increased to

Rs.10,00,000/-, reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in

Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.5,

and, in particular, para 20 thereof, wherein it was held that in the

attending facts and circumstances, considering the multiple brain

injuries/injuries sustained by the claimant because of which he was

comatose and bedridden, Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded as enhanced

compensation, observing the same to be reasonable;

(iii) The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of future medical

expenses, which the High Court maintained without any discussion.

Under this head too, it was submitted that the compensation should

be enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- in view of Parminder Singh v. New

4
(2017) 16 SCC 680
5
(2022) 13 SCC 142

5| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021
India Assurance Co. Ltd 6; and Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Co.

Ltd.7.

9. The age of the claimant-appellant at the time of the accident was 37 years8.

The computation of future prospects is to be done as per the law laid down by a

Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) para 59.3, which

records the conclusion in this regard, reads as under :-

“59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40
to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50
to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary
should read as actual salary less tax.”

10. It is submitted that the claimant-appellant’s employment was permanent in

nature, and as such, the loss of future income ought to be calculated, in terms of

the above, at 50%. The High Court, in para 23 of the judgment, observes that the

total income of the claimant-appellant was Rs.27,867/- per month. 50% thereof

is Rs.13,933/-. His income, therefore, comes to Rs.41,800/- (27,867 + 13,933).

Considering the above-computed income, the compensation under the head loss

of future prospects would be Rs.41,800 x 12 x 15 x 100% = Rs.75,24,000/- as

opposed to Rs.70,22,520/- as calculated by the High Court.

The total compensation as it stands at the moment would be Rs. 80,67,870/-

+ Rs.6,61,371/- = Rs.87,29,241/-.

6
(2019) 7 SCC 217
7
(2020) 9 SCC 805
8
Claim petition, Annexure A-3

6| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021

11. Let us now consider the claimant-appellant’s prayer for enhancement of

compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’. It cannot be disputed that the

injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant are serious, and their effects on his

life are long-lasting; one may even say lifelong. The examination of the doctor,

namely, Dr. N.C. Prakash, forming part of record as Annexure P-5, dated 6th

October 2010 reads as under:

“5. I further state that recently I examined the patient on 30-
9-2010 for assessment of disability. He complains of the
following:

a. No sensation to below the C-7 Dermatome.

b. Lost sensation of bowel and urinary system.
c. No control below the neck.

d. Needs assistance for every activity.

6. On examination I found the following:

At present he is in wheel chair bound with no movements
(Grade 0/5) in both lower limbs, minimal movements in
bilateral upper limb proximally with wrist being very weak
(1/5 power) and grip is not possible. He has no urinary
control, has no sensation of bowels and is on urinary
catheter. He needs help for all his day to day activities. He
was an Assistant Team Leader in LM Glass Fibers India Pvt.
Ltd. and now can’t do any work. He has almost no chance
of further improvement and impairment is likely to be
permanent. All put together he has a disability of about 85%
to the whole body.”

12. It is to be noted that both the Tribunal and the High Court have taken the

disability suffered by the claimant-appellant to be at 100%. We find no ground to

take a different view.

13. While acknowledging that ‘pain and suffering’, as a concept escapes

definition, we may only refer to certain authorities, scholarly as also judicial

wherein attempts have been made to set down the contours thereof.

7| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021
13.1 The entry recording the term ‘pain and suffering’ in P. Ramanatha

Iyer’s Advanced Law Lexicon9 reads as under:-

“Pain and suffering. The term ‘Pain and suffering’ mean
physical discomfort and distress and include mental and
emotional trauma for which damages can be recovered in
an accident claim.

This expression has become almost a term of art, used
without making fine distinction between pain and suffering.
Pain and suffering which a person undergoes cannot be
measured in terms of money by any mathematical
calculation. Hence the Court awards a sum which is in the
nature of a conventional award [Mediana, The (1900) AC
113, 116]”

13.2 Eric Cassell10, an American Physician and Bioethicist, defines ‘pain’

not only as a sensation but also ‘as experience embedded in beliefs about

causes and diseases and their consequences’, and ‘suffering’ as ‘the state of

severe distress associated with events that threaten the intactness of person’.

13.3 In a recent article11 published in the journal of the International

Association for the Study of Pain, it has been recorded that there is no

consensus on what exactly the concept of pain-related suffering includes, and

it is often not precisely operationalised in empirical studies. The authors in

their systematic review analysed 111 articles across a variety of disciplines

such as bioethics, medical ethics, psycho-oncology, anaesthesiology,

philosophy, sociology etc., we may refer to few of them:

9

3rd Edition reprint 2009, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, page 3441
10
http://www.ericcassell.com/bio.html
11
Noe-Steinmüller et.al, (2024) “Defining suffering in pain: a systematic review on pain-related suffering using
natural language processing.” 165 (7) : p1434-1449

8| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021
13.3.1 Eugene V. Boisaubin12, who is currently a Professor at the

University of Texas, at Houston, in a 1989 article defined it as

“Suffering is experienced by individual and arises from threats to the

integrity of the individual as a complex social and psychological

entity.”

13.3.2 Andrew Edgar, who is currently a Reader Emeritus in

Philosophy at Cardiff University at UK has defined, in a 2007 article

suffering as an “experience of life never getting better, revealing in the

sufferer only vulnerability, futility, and impotence.”

13.3.3 Arthur W. Frank13, Professor Emeritus, Department of

Sociology, University of Calgary in his well-known article “Can We

Research Suffering?”, published in 2001, observed that “at the core of

suffering is the sense that something is irreparably wrong with our lives,

and wrong is the negation of what could have been right. Suffering

resists definition because it is the reality of what is not.”

13.3.4 Daryl Pullman14 who currently serves as University research

Professor, Bioethics at the Memorial University of Newfoundland,

Canada in his 2002 article defined suffering as the “product of

12
https://med.uth.edu/oep/members-2/eugene-v-boisaubin-md/
13
https://sps.columbia.edu/faculty/arthur-w-frank-phd
14
https://www.mun.ca/medicine/faculty-and-staff-resources/faculty-a-z/pullman-daryl.php

9| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021
[physical], psychological, economic, or other factors that frustrate an

individual in the pursuit of significant life projects.”

13.4 The Judicial Studies Board, now known as the Judicial College in the

United Kingdom, produced guidelines in 1992 to produce greater

consistency of awards and make the judicial scale of values more easily

accessible. They have been deduced from a study of past cases, examining

the range of awards therein. The latest edition of these guidelines was

published in 202115. They record the difficulty of computing ‘pain and

suffering’ as under :-

“It is widely accepted that making of an award of general
damages for pain and suffering is a somewhat artificial task.
It involves the Judge seeking to convert the pain and
suffering of a given claimant into a monetary award which
he or she considers to be reasonable by way of
compensation. That is a difficult task and one which has
historically led to judges making widely varying awards of
damages in respect of relatively comparable injuries a result
which not only offends the principle of equality before law
but results in unnecessary appeals and the incurring of
additional cost, apart altogether from the burden that such
appeals place on the Court’s own scarce resources.”

13.5 In determining non-pecuniary damages, the artificial nature of

computing compensation has been highlighted in Heil v. Rankin16, as

referred to in Attorney General of St. Helena v. AB & Ors.17 as under:-

15

See : Hassam and Anr. v. Rabot and Anr. (2024) UKSC 11
16
[2001] QB 272
17
Privy Council Appeal No. 0034 of 2018.

10| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021
“23. This principle of ‘full compensation’ applies to
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage alike. But, as
Dickson J indicated in the passage cited from his judgment
in Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, 83 DLR (3d) 452,
475-476, this statement immediately raises a problem in a
situation where what is in issue is what the appropriate level
of ‘full compensation’ for non-pecuniary injury is when the
compensation has to be expressed in pecuniary terms. There
is no simple formula for converting the pain and suffering,
the loss of function, the loss of amenity and disability which
an injured person has sustained, into monetary terms. Any
process of conversion must be essentially artificial. Lord
Pearce expressed it well in H West & Son Ltd v Shephard
[1964] AC 326, 364 when he said:

‘The court has to perform the difficult and artificial task of
converting into monetary damages the physical injury and
deprivation and pain and to give judgment for what it
considers to be a reasonable sum. It does not look beyond
the judgment to the spending of the damages.’

24. The last part of this statement is undoubtedly right. The
injured person may not even be in a position to enjoy the
damages he receives because of the injury which he has
sustained. Lord Clyde recognised this in Wells v Wells
[1999] 1 AC 345, 394H when he said: ‘One clear principle
is that what the successful plaintiff will in the event actually
do with the award is irrelevant.”

13.6 In the context of the United States, the most important piece of legal

literature regarding ‘pain and suffering’ is an article titled Valuing Life and

Limb in Tort: Scheduling Pain and Suffering, published in the year 1989.

Relevant extracts thereof read as under :

“Pain and suffering and other intangible or non-economic
losses are even more problematic. Physical pain and
attendant suffering have for centuries being recognised as
legitimate elements of damages, and “modern” tort law has
seen a marked expansion of the rights to recover for forms
of mental anguish. Some Courts have even permitted
recovery for emotional trauma unaccompanied by physical
injury, including derivative losses stemming from injuries
to family members. The precise elements of compensable
non-economic loss vary by jurisdiction. Pain and suffering
may be used as a catch-all category for the jury’s
consideration of all non-pecuniary losses in a case of a non-
fatal injury, subsuming other qualitative categories such as

11| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021
mental anguish and humiliation. More commonly, though,
other non-economic elements – such as “loss of enjoyment
of life” are accorded independent standing …”

Another important observation is that:

“Whatever the categories of non-economic damages
allowed in a given jurisdiction, the law provides no
objective benchmarks valuing them. As one commentator
notes, “Courts have usually been content to say that pain
and suffering damages should amount to ‘fair
compensation’, or a ‘reasonable amount’, ‘without any
definite guide’.”

13.7 Consideration of the above, underlines that while each discipline has

its own conception of the meaning of pain/suffering, within its confines, the

commonality that emerges is that a person’s understanding of oneself is

shaken or compromised at its very root at the hands of consistent suffering.

In the present facts, it is unquestionable that the sense of something being

irreparably wrong in life, as spoken by Frank (supra); vulnerability and

futility, as spoken by Edgar, is present and such a feeling will be present for

the remainder of his natural life.

14. In respect of ‘pain and suffering’ in cases where disability suffered is at

100%, we may notice a few decisions of this Court:-

14.1 In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.18. It was

observed :

“17. The claim under Sl. No. 16 for ‘pain and suffering’ and
for loss of amenities of life under Sl. No. 17, are claims for
non-pecuniary loss. The appellant has claimed lump sum
amount of Rs.3,00,000 each under the two heads. The High
Court has allowed Rs.1,00,000 against the claims of
Rs.6,00,000. When compensation is to be awarded for ‘pain
and suffering’ and loss of amenity of life, the special

18
(1995) 1 SCC 551

12| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021
circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account
including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered,
the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of
compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to
determine but the award must reflect that different
circumstances have been taken into consideration.

According to us, as the appellant was an advocate having
good practice in different courts and as because of the
accident he has been crippled and can move only on
wheelchair, the High Court should have allowed an amount
of Rs.1,50,000 in respect of claim for ‘pain and suffering’
and Rs.1,50,000 in respect of loss of amenities of life. We
direct payment of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) against
the claim of Rs.6,00,000 under the heads “‘pain and suffering’”
and “Loss of amenities of life”.

(Emphasis Supplied)

14.2 This Judgment was recently referred to by this Court in Sidram v.

United India Insurance Company Ltd.19 reference was also made to

Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty20 (irrespective of the percentage of

disability incurred, the observations are instructive), wherein it was

observed :

“18. A person not only suffers injuries on account of
accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the
accident through out his life and a feeling is developed that
his no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities
of life as another normal person can. While fixing
compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of
amenities, features like his age, marital status and unusual
deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to be
reckoned.”

14.3 In Kajal v. Jagdish Chand21 considering the facts of the case, i.e.,

100% disability, child being bedridden for life, her mental age being that of

a nine-month-old for life – a vegetative existence, held that “even after taking

19
(2023) 3 SCC 439
20
(2003) 7 SCC 197
21
(2020) 4 SCC 413

13| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021
a conservative view of the matter an amount payable for the ‘pain and

suffering’ of this child should be at least Rs.15,00,000/-.”

14.4 In Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance22 relying on Kajal (supra)

the amount awarded in ‘pain and suffering’ was enhanced to Rs.10,00,000.

The child who had suffered the accident was five years old and the Court

noted in paragraph 2 that :

“As per the discharge certificate, the appellant is not able to
move both his legs and had complete sensory loss in the
legs, urinary incontinence, bowel constipation and bed
sores. The appellant was aged about 5 years as on the date
of the accident, hence has lost his childhood and is
dependent on others for his routine work.”

14.5 In Lalan (supra) cited by the claimant-appellant, the Tribunal

awarded Rs.30,000/- which was enhanced to Rs.40,000/- by the High Court.

Considering the fact that the appellant therein has suffered extensive brain

injury awarded compensation under ‘pain and suffering’ to the tune of

Rs.3,00,000/-.

15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the

‘pain and suffering’ caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon

the claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we

find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award

Rs.15,00,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’, fully conscious of the fact

that the prayer of the claimant–appellant for enhancement of compensation was

22
(2022) 7 SCC 738

14| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021
by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and

reasonable at the amount so awarded.

16. It stands clarified that we have modified the Award, as given by the High

Court, only on two counts, i.e., future prospects and ‘pain and suffering’. The

amount as enhanced, shall carry interest @ 6%, from the date of filing of the

petition for special leave to appeal. According to paragraph 10, the compensation

to be awarded stood at Rs.87,29,241/-. Consequent to the above discussion on

‘pain and suffering’, the total amount now payable is Rs.1,02,29,241/-.

17. The appeal is allowed as aforesaid. Pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

18. No costs.

……………………………J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)

…………………………….J.
(SANJAY KAROL)

New Delhi
November 22, 2024

15| SLP (C) NO. 18337 OF 2021

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *