MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 39, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 39 
MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN 
V. 
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 
CORPORATION &ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.7201-7202.of 2015) 
SEPTEMBER 18,2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
·c 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 - Compensation -
Claimant-appellant met with an accident- Sustained serious 
head injury and lost his memory - He could neither speak 
nor move properly due to injuries sustained in the accident 
-At the time of accident, he was aged 35 years and working D 
as a constable in SRP - His earning was Rs. 1400 P. M -
MACT held that claimant had suffered 50% disability and 
accordingly awarded him a total sum of Rs. 2. 19 lacs as 
compensation - Corporation and claimant both appealed-
High Court partly allowed appeal of Corporation and held E 
that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1. 15 lacs towards future 
Joss of income instead of Rs.1.80 lacs awarded by MACT 
and directed the claimant to refund the excess amount of 
Rs. 64,800 -
Claimant's appeal for enhancement of 
compensation was dismissed- On appeal, held: Keeping in 
F 
view the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, resultant 
permanent disabilities caused to him due to such injuries 
couple~ with the amount spent by him in receiving medical 
treatment, loosing the permanent job due to injuries 
sustained by him, future Joss of income caused as a result of G 
the injuries and lastly the continuous mental pain and agony 
suffered by him, a sum of Rs.4 lacs claimed by way
of 
compensation was just and reasonable - In a case of this 
nature, the injuries sustained by the claimant were more H 
39
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A painful because he would have to live his remaining life with 
such disabilities, which he did not have before a~cident -
This undoubtedly would deprive him to live his norma/life -
Courts below failed to take note of this material fact while 
determining the compensation - Impugned order modified 
B and claimant awarded Rs. 4 lacs. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In a case where the appellant has proved 
c that he has lost his speaking power as also lost his 
memory retention power due to causing of head injury 
and further he is not able to move freely at the age of 35 
years and lastly due to these injuries, he has also lost 
his job, there is no reason how the MACT and the High 
o Court could come to a conclusion that a compensation 
of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the appellant was on a higher 
side and thus reduce it to Rs.1 ,54,200/-. Keeping in view 
of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, 
resultant permanent disabilities caused to him to the 
E extent of 50% or 30% due to such injuries which are held 
proved by the appellant coupled with the amount spent 
by him in receiving medical treatment also duly held 
proved by him, loosing the permanent job due to injuries 
sustained by him, future loss of income caused as a 
F result of the injuries and lastly the continuous mental 
pain and agony suffered by him, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
claimed by the appellant by way of compensation is just 
and
reasonable. In a case of this nature, the injuries 
sustained by the claimant-appellant herein are more 
G painful because he has to live his remaining life with such 
disabilities, which he did not have before accident. This 
undoubtedly deprives him to live his normal life. The 
Courts below failed to take note of this material fact while 
H determining the compensation, which calls for
MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN v. GUJARAT STATE 
41 
ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. 
interference by this Court. [Paras 18 to 20] [45-H; 46-A-
A 
F] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
7201 -7202 of2015 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2012 of the 
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal Nos. 1536 
and 1819 of2001. 
Nikhil Goel, Naveen Goel, Marsook Bafaki for the 
Appellant. 
C 
R. P. Bhatt, Chirag M. Shroff, Swati Vaibhav for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
D 
2. These appeals are directed against the common final 
judgment and order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the High E 
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 1536.of 
2001 and First Appeal No. 1819 of 2001 which arise out of 
the award dated 30.05.2000 passed by the Motor Accident 
Claims Tribunal (MACT), Panchmhals at Godhra in Motor F 
Accident Claim Petition No. 1071 of 1987. 
3. By impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed 
the appeal filed by the respondent- Corporation and reduced 
the compensation awarded to the appellant- claimant herein 
by the MACT and in consequence directed him to refund the G 
excess awarded amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. 
to the respondent-Corporation and in consequence dismissed 
the appeal filed by the appellant herein for seeking 
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the MACT. 
H
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
4. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these 
appeals, few relevant facts need mention infra. 
. 
5. On 13.09.1987, when the appellant-claimant was 
going on his bicycle from Godhra to Popatpura, at that tlme, 
B respondent No.2, who was driving S.T. Bus No. GRU-8749 
belonging to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (in 
short "Corporation") came from Lunawada side and hit the 
appellant as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious 
injuries. The appellant was taken to the hospital at Godhra but 
C later on transferred to Baroda Hospital and from there to Civil 
Hospital at Ahmedabad for further treatment. He sustained a 
serious head injury as a result of which he lost his memory. 
Now, he is neither able to speak and nor able to move properly. 
He underwent medical treatment in hospital for a long time. At 
D the time of accident, he was aged about 35 years and was 
working as a Constable in SRP. His earning was Rs.1400/-
p.m. Due to the accident and resultant injuries sustained, the 
appellant unfortunately lost his job also. 
E 
6. The appellant then filed a claim petition being Motor 
Accident Claim Petition No. 1071 of 1987 before the Motor 
Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra under 
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short, "the Act) 
for award of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs 
F 
under various heads: By award dated 30.05.2000, the MACT 
partly allowed the
appellant's claim petition and held that 
accid~nt in question was caused due to n~gligence of 
respondent No.1 therein (respondent No.2 herein) that the 
G appellant had suffered 50% disability in his body due to injuries 
sustained and accordingly awarded to him a total sum of 
Rs.2, 19,000/- as compensation which included expenses in 
receiving treatment and compensation for injuries sustained. 
7. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the 
H MACT, the appellant filed an appeal being F.A. No. 1819 of
MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN v. GUJARAT STATE 
43 
ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
2001 for enhancement of claim. awarded by the MACT whereas A 
the Corporation-respondent No.1 herein filed F.A. No. 1536 
of 2001 against that part of the award which allowed the claim 
· petition in. part and awarded Rs.2,19,000/- contending that it 
was on the higher side and hence be reduced. 
B 
8. By the common impugned judgment, the High Court 
partly allowed the appeal filed by respondent- Corporation and 
held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.1, 15,200/-towards future 
loss of income instead of Rs.1 ,80,000/- awarded by the MACT 
and directed the claimant to refund the excess amount of C 
Rs.64,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the 
respondent..:..Corporation. As a consequence, the appeal filed 
by the appellant herein for enhancement for compensation, 
was dismissed. 
9. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the High Court, 
the appellant-claimant has filed these appeals by way of special 
leave. 
D 
10. Heard Mr. Nikhil Gael, learned counsel for the E 
appellant and Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned s~nior counsel for 
respondent-1 (Corporation). 
11. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant ~hile 
assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order F 
contended that the High Court erred in allowing the appeal 
filed by the respondent-Corporation thereby erred in reducing 
the compensation awarded to the appellant by the MACT and 
further erred in
dismissing the appellant's appeal. It was his 
submission that having regard to the nature of the injuries G 
sustained by the appellant in the accident and the percentage 
of permanent disabilities caused to the appellant due to the 
injuries_on his body such as loss of speech and memory, his 
inability to move freely and lastly loss of permanent job of 
Constable on account of these disabilities, the MACT should 
H
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
have awarded Rs.4,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant in 
his claim petition rather than awarding Rs.2, 19,000/- including 
expenses incurred on treatment. Learned counsel contended 
that since the MACT failed to award Rs.4,00,000/-, the High 
Court should have corrected the said error by enhancing the 
8 
compensation amount to Rs.4,00,000/- by allowing the 
appellant's appeal and in consequence dismissing the 
respondent's appeal. 
12. Learned counsel pointed out that the appellant had 
C proved the nature of injuries so also the resultant disabilities 
caused to him due to sustaining of such injuries by examining 
Dr. Usha Goswami and also from his own evidence which 
remained rebutted for want of any evidence adduced by the 
respondents and hence taking into account the appellant's 
D monthly salary, age 35 years, percentage of permanent 
disability duly proved (50% assessed by the MACT and 30% 
assessed by the High Court), expenses incurred in receiving 
long medical treatment in several hospitals proved by 
documents (Ex-P-1 to Ex-P-58), future loss of income and 
E lastly compensation payable under the head of pain and 
suffering, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the appellant was 
just and reasonable compensation and hence it should have 
been awarded by the MACT or in any event by the High Court 
F by modifying the award of the MACTin appellant's favour. 
13. In contra, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 while supporting the impugned 
judgment contended that it does not call for any interference. 
His submission was that having regard to the nature of injuries 
G sustained by the appellant and the resultant permanent 
disability caused to the appellant and the loss caused, what 
was awarded by the MACT was on the higher side and, 
therefore, it was rightly reduced by the High Court by allowing 
H the respondent's appeal.
MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN v. GUJARAT STATE 
45 
ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE. J.] 
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and A 
on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the 
submissions of the appellant. 
15. We have examined the evidence adduced by the 
parties with a view to see the nature of injuries and the resultant B 
disability caused to the appellant due to such injuries. 
· 16. This issue was dealt with by the High Court in Para 
6 and we find no good ground to differ with this finding of the 
High Court, which is otherwise not under challenge. It reads c 
as under: 
"As far as disability is concerned, Dr. Usha 
Go.swami who has examined the claimant was 
Professor in Psychology Department and she is a 0 
head of the Psychology Department in the Civil 
Hospital, Ahmedabad. She categorically stated that 
due to injury, the claimant has lost his service an~ 
he is notable to speak properly and he had lost his 
memory and he is unable to move properly outside. E 
However, the disability certificate was not produced 
by the claimant befo~e the Tribunal. Therefore, in 
absence of disability certificate, 50% disability was 
assessed by the Tribunal which is on higher side. 
It should be 30% as the claimant is not able to speak F 
and lost his memory ..... " 
17. Having rendered the aforementioned finding in 
appellant's favour, the High Court, in our opinion, should not 
have reduced the compensation awarded by the MACT but it G
should have enhanced the compensation by ·allowing the 
appellant's appeal. 
·ts. In our considered opinion, in a case where. the 
appellant has proved that he has lost his speaking power as H
I 
i ! 
I 
! 
46 
- SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
A also lost his memory retention power due to causing of head 
injury and further he is not able to move freely at the age of 35 
years and lastly due to these injuries, he has also lost his job, -
we fail to appreciate as to how and on what reasons the MACT 
and the High Court could come to a conclusion that a 
B compensation ofRs.4,00,000/- claimed by the appellant was 
on a higher side and thus reduced it to Rs.1 ,54,200/-. Indeed 
we found no reason. 
19. In our considered opinion, keeping .in view of the 
C nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, resultant 
permanent disabilities caused to him to the extent of 50% or 
30% due to such injuries which are held proved by the appellant 
coupled with the amount spent by him in receiving medical 
treatment also duly held proved (Ex-P-1 to Ex-P-58) by him, 
D- loosing the permanent job due to injuries sustained by him, 
future loss of income caused as a result of the injuries and 
lastly the continuous mental pain and agony suffered by him, 
a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the appellant by way of 
compensation is just and reasonable. 
E 
20. In a case of this nature, iri our opinion, the injuries 
sustained by the claimant-appellant herein are more painful 
because he has to live his remaining life with such disabilities, 
which he did not,have before accident This undoubtedly 
F - deprives him to live his normal life. The Courts below failed to 
take note of this material
fact while determining the 
compensation, which in our opinion, calls for interference by 
this Court. 
G 
. 21. We are not impressed by the submission urged by 
the counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as in our opinion 
in the absence of any rebuttal evidence adduced by 
respondent No.1 and in the light of the findings recorded by 
the Courts below mentioned supra, the submission is found to 
H be devoid of any merit and it is accordingly rejected. 
" 1 
---

MITHUSINH PANNASINHCHAUHAN v. GUJARATSTATE 
47 
ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
22. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals filed by A 
the claimant succeed and are hereby allowed. Impugned order 
is modified in appellant-claimant's favour by awarding a sum 
of Rs.4, 00,0001- by way of compensation against respondent 
No.1-Corporation. An awarded sum, i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. ~ 
lakhs) would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum payable B 
from the date of claim petition till realization. No costs. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals allowed.