MOHD. SABEER @ SHABIR HUSSAIN versus REGIONAL MANAGER, U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 427, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 427
427
MOHD. SABEER @ SHABIR HUSSAIN
v.
REGIONAL MANAGER, U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022)
DECEMBER 09, 2022
[KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Motor Vehicle – Accident – Claim – Assessment of
compensation – Permanent Disability Percentage – Appellant was
travelling in a bus which was driven in a rash and negligent manner
by the respondent – Bus met with an accident and the appellant
received grave injuries – The MACT (Tribunal) by holding that it
was the rash and negligent driving that caused the accident,
awarded a compensation of 15,76,465/- – High Court modified and
enhanced the compensation to 16,70,932/- – High Court assessed
the appellant’s functional disability as 35% – On appeal, held: As
per the disability certificate, the appellant suffered 70% disability
– The functional disability of the appellant will severely impact his
earning capacity – The 35% functional disability calculated by the
High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case
and the loss of future earning capacity of appellant must be
calculated at 60% – It is a well settled position of law that in cases
of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant
is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects
– Considering the nature of the permanent disability caused by the
accident and the effect it will have on the appellant’s life, the
compensation provided by
the High Court for non- pecuniary heads
is inadequate – In case of permanent disability, the courts must
look case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic
background of the claimants.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Appellant herein has suffered permanent
disability of 70% and has an amputated right lower limb amongst
other injuries. The High Court has wrongly taken the view that
the Appellant has only suffered 35% functional disability. The
Appellant is not a salaried person but is self-employed who
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
manages his business. For the Appellant to be able to augment
his income, he is most definitely required to move around. The
Appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility
further. This proves that the functional disability of the Appellant
will severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35% functional
disability calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts
and circumstances of the case and in this Courts’ view the loss of
future earning capacity must be calculated at 60%. [Para 16][436-
E-F]
FUTURE PROSPECTS
2. It is a well settled position of law that in cases of
permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant
is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future
prospects. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple
instances that “just compensation” must be interpreted in such
a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was
before the accident took place. The accident that caused the injury
took place on 12.06.2009. The acknowledgement of both the
Income Tax Returns produced by the Appellant show that Tax
Returns were till 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009. Both the Income
Tax Returns produced as proof of income were from before the
accident took place, and hence the High Court’s finding that the
income of the Appellant has increased after the disability is
incorrect. It is also to be noted that even if the income of the
Appellant had
increased after the accident, it would not be enough
grounds to disable the Appellant from claiming compensation for
future prospect as the rise in income may be attributed to multiple
other factors. [Paras 18-20][437-A-D]
COMPENSATION FOR THE PURCHASE AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE PROSTHETIC LEG
3. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic
limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15
years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to
be replaced after a few years. TheAppellant was only 37 years at
the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume
that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is
able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able
to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age.
For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded
compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same
he is to be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-. [Para 23][438-
C-E]
NON-PECUNIARY COMPENSATION
3. The High Court has upheld the compensation awarded
by the Ld. Tribunal for non-pecuniary damages, which comes to
Rs. 3,00,000/- in total. Considering the nature of the permanent
disability caused by the accident and the effect it will have on the
Appellant’s life, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation
provided by the High Court for non- pecuniary heads is
inadequate. [Para 24][438-E-F]
CONCLUSION
4. While awarding compensation in cases of permanent
disability caused to claimants, the courts must look at the case in
totality, and must consider the socio-economic background of the
claimants. The Appellant herein comes from an economically
weaker section of the society. It is almost universally seen that
persons from marginalized backgrounds often face an additional
layer of discrimination due to bodily disabilities. This is because
persons from marginalized sections of the society already face
severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new
disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination.
In such
circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice, it
becomes the duty of the Court to at the very least restore the
claimant as best as possible to the position he was in before the
occurrence of the disability, and to do so must award compensation
in a liberal manner. While no material compensation can
completely negate the trauma and suffering that the injured and
his family faces, the law only knows the language of monetary
compensation in such cases. It then becomes to duty of the court
to translate the provisions of monetary compensation into a
fabrication that helps the injured and his family in coping with
their loss. [Paras 27-29][439-F-H; 440-A-B]
MOHD. SABEER @ SHABIR HUSSAIN v. RM, U. P. STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and Anr. (2017) 3 SCC
351 : 2017 (2) JT 68; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and
Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179; Anant
son of Sidheshwar Dukre Vs. Pratap son of
Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 8420 of
2018 – relied on.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
& Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100;
R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd (1995)
1 SCC 551 : [1995] 1 SCR 75 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 13 SCR 179
relied on
Para 15
[2017] 13 SCR 100
referred to
Para 21
[1995] 1 SCR 75
referred to
Para 25
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-
9071 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Review Petition No.391 of 2018 and dated
11.09.2018 in MAC. APP. No. 444 of 2013.
Manish Maini, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv., Nishit Agrawal, Shadeb Khan,
Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Divya, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeals are directed against the final order dated
12.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi, (hereinafter referred to
as “High Court”) in Review Petition No. 391 of 2018 and against the
impugned final judgment dated 11.09.2018 passed by the High Court of
New Delhi.
3. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as
follows:
I.
The Appellant, who is a scrap dealer, was travelling in a
bus bearing No. UP-25T-9664 towards his residence in
Delhi from his native place at Noor Pur, Gajrola.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
431
II.
The driver of the bus, who is the Respondent No.1 herein
was driving in a rash and negligent manner. At around 12:30
am, near the Jindal Pipe Factory in Ghaziabad, the
Respondent no.1 driver hit a standing tempo which was
parked on the left side of the road.
III.
As a result of this accident, the Appellant and the other
passengers in the bus received grave injuries all over their
bodies. The Appellant was aged 37 years at the time of the
accident and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. As per
the Disability Certificate, the Appellant suffered permanent
disability of 70%, his right lower limb amongst other injuries.
4. The Appellant after the accident filed a claim petition before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Delhi-II, Dwarka Court, New Delhi
claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs).
5. The Ld. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred
to as ‘MACT’) after examining the evidence and issues at hand, held
that the Respondent No.1 was the driver of the vehicle, and it was his
rash and negligent driving that caused the accident. The Ld. MACT
awarded a compensation of Rs.15,76,465/- to the Appellant along with
7.5% interest per annum, the breakup of the same is as follows:
MOHD. SABEER @ SHABIR HUSSAIN v. RM, U. P. STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
6. The Appellant then filed MAC App. No. 444/2013 before the
High Court of Delhi on grounds that the Ld. MACT did not calculate the
loss of earning capacity, future prospects and wrong computation of the
Appellant’s disability.
7. The High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 11.09.2018
modified the award passed by the Ld. MACT and disposed of the Appeal
by enhancing the compensation to Rs.16,70,932/- with 9% interest per
annum. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:-
“…Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and
the evidence on record, I find that on the aspect of discrepancy
in timing of the accident, there is no cross- examination of
Injured and so, Insurer cannot be absolved from paying the
compensation awarded. It is not the case of Conductor (R2W1)
that the Injured was not travelling in the bus in question.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the evidence
of Injured (PW-4) to hold that the negligence was of the bus
driver in causing of the accident in question. The Tribunal
has assessed the functional disability of Injured to be 30%.
The permanent disability is 70% in relation to right lower
limb. It is a case of amputation of right leg below the knee
and so, the functional disability is assessed at 35%. On the
quantum aspect, I find that though there is “loss of future
earning”, but the “earning capacity” of the Injured has been
certainly compromised. Income of the deceased has
been
assessed by the Tribunal on the basis of ITRS, which were
filed after this accident, but there is no basis to conclude that
the income of Injured was less than the one reflected in the
ITRS for the year 2008-09. On this aspect also, there is no
cross-examination of Injured. Therefore, in the facts of instant
case, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the “loss of earning
capacity” while taking the income of the Injured as reflected
in the ITRs. The Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier
of 16. The applicable multiplier is of 15. As regards the age
of Injured, there is no cross-examination of the Injured on
this aspect. Therefore, the age of the Injured is taken to be 37
years, which would attract the multiplier of 15. ITRS relied
upon by Injured reveals that his income had increased despite
the disability caused and so, it cannot be said that there is
“loss of future earning.…”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
8. Subsequently, the Appellant filed a Review Petition No. 391 of
2018 before the High Court of New Delhi seeking for enhancement of
compensation to Rs.20,00,000/-, and the same was dismissed vide
judgment dated 12.10.2018 whilst upholding the judgment passed in the
appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellant herein has filed the
present Civil Appeal.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
9. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that : -
I.
The High Court wrongly assessed the appellant’s loss of
income due to the disability to be only 35%, when the medical
board has assessed the petitioner’s permanent disability to
be 70%. The appellant as a result of the injuries cannot
drive his vehicle and cannot lift heavy weights.
II.
Since the Appellant’s income was assessed on the basis of
documentary evidence, the Appellant ought to have been
awarded future prospects to the extent of 50%.
III.
The compensation granted for the repair, purchase and
maintenance of the Artificial leg is inadequate. It was
submitted that the cost of the artificial limb is Rs.2,60,000/
-, and the life of the limb is 5-6 years. The limb further
requires repair after every 6 months, and the cost of repair
is between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The Appellant is
aged only 37 years and will require the limb for the rest of
his life, which would mean that the current compensation
of Rs.5,20,000/- is inadequate.
IV.
The compensation awarded to the Appellant under the head
“Pain and
Agony” and “loss due to disability and
disfigurement” being Rs.1,00,000/- each is inadequate. The
counsel relied on Anant son of Sidheshwar Dukre Vs.
Pratap son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Anr.1.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
10. Per contra, The Ld. Counsel for the respondents contended
that:
1 Civil Appeal No. 8420 of 2018 (Dated : August 21, 2022)
MOHD. SABEER @ SHABIR HUSSAIN v. RM, U. P. STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
I.
The High Court has rightly taken functional disability as
35% towards amputation of lower limb. The High Court
has already increased the future loss of Income from
Rs.6,09,345/- to Rs.6,66,480/- and further increased the
amount towards conveyance from Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.50,000/-.
II.
The High Court has rightly not granted future prospects as
the Income Tax Returns of the Appellant has increased
despite disability caused from Rs. 1,26,947/- from
01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 to Rs.1,67,147/- from 01.04.2008
to 31.03.2009.
III.
The Appellant is a scrap dealer and works out of his shop.
He does not require a lot of movement to carry out his
work and therefore his disability does not affect his earning
capacity.
IV.
The Appellant had already filed a review petition in the High
Court and the same was dismissed rightfully.
ANALYSIS
11. We have heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the
Appellant and the Respondents in great detail.
12. The High Court has rightly held that the accident in question
did take place, the Appellant did suffer damages due to the negligence
of Respondent No.1 driver and that the Insurer cannot be absolved from
paying the compensation Awarded. The only question that remains for
us to decide is on the aspect of the quantum of damages awarded.
LOSS OF INCOME DUE TO FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY
13. The Appellant has suffered an amputation of the lower right
limb, a fracture in the medial wall of the
bilateral orbit, crush injury right
leg, fracture tibia right leg, exposed vessels and other injuries. As per the
disability certificate, the Appellant has suffered 70% disability, however
the High Court has held that the Appellant has only suffered 35% loss in
future earnings due to the disability.
14. To assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded, this
Court has to assess whether the permanent disability caused has any
adverse effect on the earning capacity of the Appellant, as held by this
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
435
Court in the case of Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande and Anr.2. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted hereunder :-
“The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration
thus is to assess whether the permanent disability has any
adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. We feel
that the conclusion of the MACT on the application of
aforesaid test is erroneous. A very myopic view is taken by
the MACT in taking the view that 70% permanent disability
suffered by the appellant would not impact the earning
capacity of the appellant. The MACT thought that since the
appellant is a chartered accountant he is supposed to do sitting
work and therefore his working capacity is not impaired…..
A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to
his duties may not be able to match the earning incomparison
with the one who is healthy and bodily able. Movements of
the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that
too at a young age.”
15. This Court has also laid out in the case of Raj Kumar Vs
Ajay Kumar and Anr.3 that where the claimant suffers a permanent
disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss
of future earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of the
Permanent Disability on his earning capacity. This Court observed as
under :-
“Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result
of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head
of loss of future earnings,
would depend upon the effect and
impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity.
The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage
of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss
or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage
of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning
capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different
from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals
wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent
(percentage) of permanent disability would result in a
2 (2017) 3 SCC 351
3 (2011) 1 SCC 343
MOHD. SABEER @ SHABIR HUSSAIN v. RM, U. P. STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if
the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability,
will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In
most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of
earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent
disability will result in award of either too low or too high a
compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal
is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning
capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning
capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be
quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of
earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to
determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in
some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the
Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity
as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the
same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case,
of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for
determination of compensation.”
16. The Appellant herein has suffered permanent disability of 70%
and has an amputated right lower limb amongst other injuries. The High
Court has wrongly taken the view that the Appellant has only suffered
35% functional disability. The Appellant is not a salaried person but is
self-employed who manages
his business. For the Appellant to be able
to augment his income, he is most definitely required to move around.
The Appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility
further. This proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will
severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35% functional disability
calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances
of the case and in our view the loss of future earning capacity must be
calculated at 60%.
FUTURE PROSPECTS
17. The High Court has not applied the quantum for future prospect
in the compensation granted. In its reasoning, the High Court has stated
that the Income tax returns relied upon by the Appellant show that despite
the injury the Appellant’s income had subsequently increased and hence
it cannot be said that there is a loss of future earnings.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
18. It is a well settled position of law that in cases of permanent
disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not
just future loss of income, but also future prospects. It has been reiterated
by this Court in multiple instances that “just compensation” must be
interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position
as he was before the accident took place.
19. The accident that caused the injury took place on 12.06.2009.
The acknowledgement of both the Income Tax Returns produced by the
Appellant show that Tax Returns were till 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009.
Both the Income Tax Returns produced as proof of income were from
before the accident took place, and hence the High Court’s finding that
the income of the Appellant has increased after the disability is incorrect.
20. It is also to be noted that even if the income of the Appellant
had increased after the accident, it would not be enough grounds to
disable the Appellant from claiming compensation for future prospect as
the rise in income may be attributed to multiple other factors.
21. In light of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi & Others4, the applicable 40% addition of future prospects will be
given as compensation to the Appellant herein.
COMPENSATION FOR THE PURCHASE AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE PROSTHETIC LEG
22. The High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,20,000/
- for the prosthetic limb and Rs.50,000/- towards repair and maintenance
of
the same. The Appellant submits that the cost of the prosthetic limb
itself is Rs. 2,60,000/- and the life of the prosthetic limb is only 5-6
years. The prosthetic limb also requires repair and maintenance after
every 6 months to 1 year, and each repair costs between Rs.15,000 to
Rs.20,000/-. This would mean that the prosthetic limb would last the
Appellant for only 15 years under the current compensation. The
Appellant at the time of the accident was aged 37 years and has a full
life ahead. It has been clearly stated by this Court in the case of Anant
Son of Sidheshwar Dukre (Supra) that the purpose of fair
compensation is to restore the injured to the position he was in prior to
the accident as best as possible. The relevant paragraph of the judgment
is being extracted herein:
4 (2017) 16 SCC 680
MOHD. SABEER @ SHABIR HUSSAIN v. RM, U. P. STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
“In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and
disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must
not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for
the non--pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the
injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life and enjoy those things and amenities
which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries.”
“The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act
is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position
prior to the accident.”
23. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb
and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if
we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a
few years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident,
and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70
years old if not more. We are of the opinion that the Appellant must be
compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his
lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70
years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded
compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to
be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-.
NON-PECUNIARY COMPENSATION
24. The High Court has upheld the compensation awarded by the
Ld. Tribunal for
non-pecuniary damages, which comes to Rs. 3,00,000/
- in total. Considering the nature of the permanent disability caused by
the accident and the effect it will have on the Appellant’s life, this Court
is of the opinion that the compensation provided by the High Court for
non-pecuniary heads is inadequate.
25. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.5 dealing
with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held
that:
“Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation
payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be
assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special
5 (1995) 1 SCC 551
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
439
damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has
actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated
in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those
which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical
calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary
damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i)
medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the
date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary
damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for
mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already
suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to
compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include
a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant
may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for loss of
expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal
longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv)
inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment,
frustration and mental stress in life.”
26. In light of the above decision of this Court and the facts and
circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation to be awarded is
as follows:
 I.
Compensation for pain and suffering – Rs. 2,00,000/-
 II.
Compensation for Loss of Amenities of Life – Rs. 2,00,000/-
 III. Compensation for disability and disfigurement – Rs. 2,00,000/-
CONCLUSION
27. We are of the opinion that while awarding compensation in
cases of permanent
disability caused to claimants, the courts must look
at the case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic background
of the claimants. The Appellant herein comes from an economically
weaker section of the society.
28. It is almost universally seen that persons from marginalized
backgrounds often face an additional layer of discrimination due to bodily
disabilities. This is because persons from marginalized sections of the
society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital,
and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination.
In such circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice, it becomes
the duty of the Court to at the very least restore the claimant as best as
MOHD. SABEER @ SHABIR HUSSAIN v. RM, U. P. STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
possible to the position he was in before the occurrence of the disability,
and to do so must award compensation in a liberal manner.
29. While no material compensation can completely negate the
trauma and suffering that the injured and his family faces, the law only
knows the language of monetary compensation in such cases. It then
becomes to duty of the court to translate the provisions of monetary
compensation into a fabrication that helps the injured and his family in
coping with their loss.
30. On the basis of the abovementioned facts and analysis, this
Court is of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to the
claimant/appellant under different heads ought to be as under :-
31. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned
judgment is liable to be modified as above and the claimant/appellant is
held entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,70,120/-
along with 9% interest per annum from the date of making the application.
32. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)