ANIL KUMAR  versus BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 876, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
ANIL KUMAR
v.
BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4398 of 2016)
AUGUST 31, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
s. 173 – Compensation – Claimed – Motor accident – Causing
partial and permanent disability – To 25 years old unmarried
person – Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,43,000/- towards compensation –
High Court dismissed the appeal of the claimant – On appeal, held:
Claimant was able to make out a case for further enhancement in
the quantum of compensation – He is entitled for a further sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- in lump sum in addition to the sum awarded by the
Tribunal – However, interest is not awarded on the enhanced sum
of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant was able to make out a case for
further enhancement in the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.  The appellant (claimant) was a young unmarried
boy of 25 years at the time of accident and did not suffer with any
kind of ailment. He had sustained fracture of both pelvic bones
with rapture of urethra and abdomen injuries for which he
underwent four operations and suffered partial but permanent
disability in his body which reduced his movement capacity to a
larger extent. Due to partial but permanent disability, also lost
his job. He spent a substantial sum for his medical treatment.
Since he was still not able to move freely due to disabilities
suffered by him, he is entitled to be suitably compensated by
awarding him monetary compensation. [Paras 11 and 12] [879-C-
F]
2. The appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
in lump sum in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal,
876
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 876
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
877
i.e., Rs.3,43,000/-. Thus, the appellant (claimant) is now entitled
to claim a total sum of Rs.8,43,000/- from the respondents jointly
and severally by way of compensation for the injuries sustained,
partial and permanent disability occurred, medical expenses
incurred and loss occasioned due to injuries sustained by him in
the accident. However, interest is not awarded on the enhanced
sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellant is entitled to claim interest
only on the sum of Rs.3,43,000/- at the rate of 8 % awarded by
the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 (Insurance Company) is directed
to deposit the awarded amount. [Paras 15, 16, 17 and 19]  [880-
A-C, D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4398
of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated  19.03.2015 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Dharwad in M.F.A. No. 24385 of 2011 (MV).
C. B. Gururaj, Yogendar Kumar Varma, Prakash Ranjan Nayak,
Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Manu Shalia, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.  1. This appeal is filed by the
claimant against the final judgment and order dated 19.03.2015 passed
by the High Court of Karnataka Bench at Dharwad in Misc. First Appeal
No. 24385 of 2011(MV) whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal
filed by the claimant (appellant herein) and affirmed the judgment and
award dated 12.04.2011 passed by the Member, MACT-II, Bellary in
M.V.C. No.711 of 2010.
2. Few relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow
to
appreciate the question involved in the appeal.
3. The appellant was working as a cleaner in a lorry bearing Regn.
No.AP-21/V-4682 belonging to respondent No.2 herein.  At the relevant
time, it was insured with respondent No.1.  On 05.12.2004, at about 1.00
p.m. near VGM Factory, Belgal Road, Bellary, when the appellant was
standing in front of the abovementioned lorry for the purpose of loading
iron ore, the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle without giving any
signal or horn and dashed it against him.  As a result of which, the
appellant sustained facture of both pelvic bones with rapture of urethra
and abdomen injuries and other grievous injuries all over his body.  The
ANIL KUMAR v. BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
appellant was then taken to VIMS Hospital, Bellary for the medical
treatment. The appellant claimed to have spent a substantial sum towards
his medical treatment.  Due to the aforementioned injuries sustained by
the appellant, he has become permanently disabled to do the work which
he was doing before the accident. At the time of accident, the appellant
was 25 years of age and earning Rs.4000/- per month.
4. The appellant filed a claim petition bearing M.V.C. No.711 of
2010 before the MACT-II at Bellary under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and claimed compensation from the respondents.  It
was contested by the respondents.  By award dated 12.04.2011, the
Tribunal partly allowed the appellant’s claim petition.  It was held that
the monthly income of the appellant-claimant was Rs.4000/-, that the
accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of offending
vehicle, that the appellant sustained  partial but permanent disability in
the whole body to the extent of 25% and that the age of the appellant
was 25 years on the date of accident.  The Tribunal then applied the
multiplier of 18 and accordingly  awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- towards
loss of future income, Rs.75,000/- towards pain and sufferings,
Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards future
medical expenses and Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income during laid up
period.  So far as the liability was concerned, the Tribunal held
that the
policy was a package policy equivalent to comprehensive policy, which
covers the risk of cleaner also.
5. The Tribunal accordingly awarded a total compensation of
Rs.3,43,000/- with interest payable at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date
of claim petition till payment against the respondents jointly and severally.
6.  Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the
appellant-Claimant filed M.F.A. No.24385 of 2011(MV) for enhancement
of the compensation before the High Court. The Insurance Company
(respondent No.1 herein) also felt aggrieved and filed M.F.A. No.23729
of 2011 (MV) before the High Court for setting aside the award passed
by the Tribunal.
7.  The High Court, by order dated 19.03.2015, dismissed both the
appeals.
8.  Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant-claimant has
filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court. So far as the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
879
Insurance Company-respondent No.1 herein is concerned, they have
not filed any appeal against the impugned order.
9. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,
is whether any case is made out on facts/evidence for further
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
appellant (claimant).
10.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and
accordingly enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
extent indicated infra.
11. In our considered opinion, the High Court erred in dismissing
the claimant’s appeal and thus committed an error in not further enhancing
the compensation. In other words, the appellant was able to make out a
case for further enhancement in the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal and, therefore, he is entitled for enhancement in the
award of compensation on the grounds mentioned below.
12.First, the appellant (claimant) was a young unmarried boy of
25 years at the time of accident and did not suffer with any kind of
ailment; Second, the appellant had sustained fracture of both pelvic bones
with rapture of urethra and abdomen injuries for which he underwent
four operations and suffered partial but permanent disability in his body
which reduced his movement capacity to a larger extent; Third, the
appellant due to partial but permanent disability also lost his job;  Fourth,
he spent a
substantial sum for his medical treatment; and lastly, since the
appellant is not still able to move freely due to disabilities suffered by
him, he is entitled to be suitably compensated by awarding him monetary
compensation.
13.Learned counsel for the respondent (Insurance Company)
urged that no case for any further enhancement in the compensation is
made out and that the High Court was, therefore, justified in upholding
the award of the Tribunal.
14.We do not agree with the submission urged by the learned
counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company for the abovementioned
reasons given by us.
15.In the light of the foregoing discussion and the grounds
mentioned above, which found acceptance to the Tribunal, we are of the
ANIL KUMAR v. BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
considered opinion that the appellant is entitled for a further sum of
Rs.5,00,000/-  in lump sum in addition to what has been awarded by the
Tribunal, i.e., Rs.3,43,000/-.
16. In other words, the appellant (claimant) is now entitled to claim
a total sum of Rs.8,43,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally
by way of compensation for the injuries sustained, partial and permanent
disability occurred, medical expenses incurred and loss occasioned due
to injuries sustained by him in the accident.
17. We, however, do not award interest on the enhanced sum of
Rs.5,00,000/-, which we have awarded to the appellant. In this view of
the matter, the appellant is entitled to claim interest only on the sum of
Rs.3,43,000/- at the rate of 8 % awarded by the Tribunal.
18. The appeal thus succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
Impugned order is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is
modified to the extent indicated above.
19. Respondent No.1 (Insurance Company) is directed to deposit
the awarded amount, as mentioned above, within three months in the
Tribunal to enable the claimant (appellant) to withdraw the awarded
sum after making proper verification by the Tribunal.
Kalpana K. Tripathy                                                                                 Appeal allowed.