MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHANversusGUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.

                    [2015] 10 S.C.R. 39


           MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN                            A
                              V.

          GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
               CORPORATION &ANR.
           (Civil Appeal Nos.7201-7202.of 2015)                   B
                  SEPTEMBER 18,2015
               [J. CHELAMESWAR AND
             ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
                                                                  ·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 ofinjuries 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                D
     ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Delay condoned.
Leave granted.

     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.
                                                                     D
       9. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the High Court,
 the appellant-claimant has filed these appeals by way of special
 leave.

      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
    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

I
i
      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

I
!
       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                1
    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.


                                                                            ---
  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.