Case: Narendra Singh Vs. Nishant Sharma &amp; Another

3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief prayed for in this appeal. The appellant Narendra Singh, on the fateful day of 10.10.1998 at around 8 p.m., was going along with Respondent no. 1 Nishant Sharma, from Vidyut Nagar on scooter bearing Registration no. RJ 14 20M 1120, as a pillion rider, to see the Javier Fair. When they crossed the Sushilpura Culvert, the scooter slipped on account of negligence and careless driving by the Respondent no. 1. The appellant fell down and as a consequence, suffered grievous injuries and finally had to get his right leg amputated after operation conducted on him on 24.10.1998. The appellant had to be operated three more times along with plastic surgery on the amputated leg. On 19.2.1999, the Director of Rehabilitation Centre of Jaipur issued a disability certificate to him at 60% under Rule 2 of Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1975. The appellant filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/as compensation and led evidence. Respondent no. 1, the owner and driver of the vehicle, did not respond in spite of sufficient service of notice. Respondent no.2, the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured however, took technical and formal objection though it did not lead evidence. Respondent no. 2 claimed that the appellant has neither lodged an FIR nor filed a complaint in the Criminal Court regarding accident against the scooter driver. Respondent no. 2 further claimed that the scooter driver was holding valid driving license on the date of accident, is not proved by the appellant. Even the intimation of the accident was not given to the Insurance Company which is in violation of the insurance policy.4. The appellant examined himself asSubhash asand Dr. M.P. Goyal asand also exhibited documentsto 152 in support of his claim. The Respondent no. 2 on the other hand, examined Respondent no. 1 asone Badri Prasad aswho recorded the statements of the appellant and respondent no.1 and obtained the rojnamcha report regarding accident and Amar Singh as NAW3, who claimed that he was refused to record the report regarding the accidentand also exhibited documents5. On the basis of the pleading of both the parties, the Tribunal framed issues regarding negligence, liability of the insurance company to pay compensation and also the quantum of compensation to be paid by the insurance company, if the claim is proved by the appellant. The Tribunal, after perusing the fact and evidence on record, found Respondent no.1 guilty of rash and negligent driving which caused the accident resulting in grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, on account of which amputation of his right leg was got done. This finding by the Tribunal has neither been challenged by the insured nor by the insurance company by adducing evidence and it has attained finality. We therefore, wish to confine ourselves to examine as to whether the quantum of compensation is adequate or not and the compensation awarded is as per facts, legal evidence on record and settled principles of law laid down by this Court.6. The Tribunal has observed that the appellant has suffered 60% disability as a result of the accident. His right leg had been amputated upto 3 and = inches below the knee due to infection caused by multiple operations after the accident. The appellant will be requiring artificial limb for his mobility for the rest of his life. Consequently, the chances of getting employment have also been reduced substantially. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant urged that the appellant was a student at the time of the accident. It was also urged by the learned counsel that he was earning Rs. 2000/per month by giving tuitions. However, the appellant could not prove the same. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.2 urged that compensation in terms of loss of income could not be awarded to the appellant since his claim of earning Rs. 2000/per month is not supported by evidence on record. The Tribunal, without relying on facts and evidence on record and the settled principle of law, held that since the permanent disability of the appellant is assessed at 60%, he shall be awarded a sum of Rs.Further, on account of pain and suffering, an award of Rs.for expenses incurred for going to hospital and nutrient diets, Rs. 5000/and for medicinal expenses as per medicine bills produced in2, Rs. 8,900/have been awarded to the appellant.7. Aggrieved by the meager compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, after going through the evidence on record held that the Tribunal was wrong in not accepting the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs.2000/per month. Even as per Second Schedule, which was inserted in Sectionof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Act No. 54 of 1994, with effect from 14.11.1994, the notional income for compensation topersons who have no income prior to accident, has been accepted to be Rs.15,000/per annum. In the present case, the High Court opined, that even if there were no evidence to prove that the appellant was earning Rs.2000/by giving tuitions, the same has not been challenged by the respondent Company by adducing rebuttal evidence. Therefore, in the absence of rebuttal evidence, the appellants income ought to have been taken by the Tribunal at Rs.2000/per month. Further, a multiplier of 17 on the basis of his age was taken following the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 2,44,800/was awarded under the head of loss of future income. The award of Rs. 5,000/by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering was increased to Rs. 50,000/by the High Court but the award under other conventional heads were retained. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 3,08,700/was awarded to the appellant by the High Court. The rate of interest of the compensation awarded was increased by the High Court to 7.5% from 6%, as awarded by the Tribunal as such.

Court's reasoning:
13. Under conventional heads, following the decision of Kumaresh (supra), we award Rs. 50,000/for pain and suffering since the appellant cannot walk, sit, squat or run freely and he is not able to live a normal life. We also award Rs. 1,00,000/l expenses for wholelife since he has to survive with artificial limb which might require replacement from time to time. Since the appellants leg is amputated below the knee, his chances of mobility reduce drastically. He will be deprived from attending social functions. His chances of getting married also get reduced to a great extent. Therefore, we further award Rs. 3,00,000/for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life including loss of marital prospects and marital happiness. We also award Rs. 50,000/for conveyance charges and cost of attendant in his old age since he will be requiring assistance for his basic chores as he grows old. And we also award Rs. 50,000/for food andnourishment. Hence, in total, a sum of Rs. 16,28,840/is awarded as compensation in favour of the appellant.14. Further, an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation was awarded by the Tribunal which was enhanced to 7.5% by the High Court. The interest rates determined by both the Courts below are bad in law as per the legal principles laid down in Municipal Council of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2011) 4 SCC 481, wherein this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants. Applying the same legal principles, we grant interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded by this Court.