Case: Kum.Nagina Vs. Regl. Mgr, The Oriental Ins. Co.Ltd & Another

Leave granted. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 19.10.2010 of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court whereby compensation awarded to the appellant by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, the Tribunal) in MVC Nos.536 of 2005 was enhanced by a nominal amount of Rs.20,000/-. While issuing notice of the special leave petition on 23.9.2011, this Court passed the following order:"Issue notice on the petitioners prayer for condonation of delay and also on the main petition, returnable in 12 weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.It should be indicated in the notice that this Court is likely to grant leave and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the record. In an accident which occurred on 8.12.2004, the appellant suffered grievous injuries on different parts of her body including dislocation of L2 vertebra. She filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) and claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of maxi cab bearing registration No.KA-18-4965; that the appellant had suffered grievous injuries and that as a result of accident, She had suffered physically, mentally and financially. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- and directed the owner and the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.On an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Act, the High Court enhanced the compensation by a small amount of Rs.20,000/-. The casual manner in which the High Court decided the appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is evinced from paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment, which are extracted below:"After careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on the file and impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, what emerges is that the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.30.000/-towards pain and sufferings, Rs.22,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and Rs.36,000/- towards future loss of income and hence, interference of this court is uncalled for.However, the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts, unhappiness and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is insufficient for the reason that she has undergone treatment for a period of 2 day in Victoria Hospital and 15 day in Nimhans Hospital. She has also underwent a surgery and a rod has been fixed and same was removed from the leg. Doctor has assessed the disability at 46% to the spain and 23% to the whole body, she was aged about 16 years and was selling masala items, this aspect of the matter is neither considered nor appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects as against Rs.10,000/- each towards the said head awarded by the Tribunal." In our considered view, while adjudicating the appellants prayer for enhancement of compensation, the Division Bench of the High Court was duty bound to consider the factual matrix of the case, analyze the evidence produced before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and then decided whether or not the appellant is entitled to higher compensation. Its failure to do so has resulted in manifest injustice more so because the Division Bench of the High Court ignored the law laid down in several judgments including Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]In our considered view, while adjudicating the appellants prayer for enhancement of compensation, the Division Bench of the High Court was duty bound to consider the factual matrix of the case, analyze the evidence produced before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and then decided whether or not the appellant is entitled to higher compensation. Its failure to do so has resulted in manifest injustice more so because the Division Bench of the High Court ignored the law laid down in several judgments including Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121.