R. VENKATA RAMANA & ANR.versusTHE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

                    [2013] 9 S.C.R. 451


              R. VENKATA RAMANA & ANR.                          A
                             v.
   THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
           (Civil Appeal No. 8283 of 2013)
                  SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
                                                                B
        [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
      Motor accident - Victim, a 17 year old student became
disabled - Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 18, 75, 8001 C
- with 7.5% interest- High Court reduced it to Rs. 12,45,8001
- Held: Keeping in view the amount spent by parents on
treatment of victim and the fact that he has practically become
bedridden and would require care by a person throughout his
life, compensation by Tribunal was just and proper - D
Judgment of High Court set aside and that of Tribunal
restored.
    Motor accident claims - Award of just compensation -
Discussed.                                                      E
     The son of the appellants, a 17 year old student, met
with a motor accident and because of the ~njuries,
became disabled. The Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs. 18,75,800/- with 7.5% interest from the date of filing
of the petition till payment. However, the High Court,          F
relying upon Sar/a Verma's case*, reduced the
compensation to Rs.12,45,800/-. Agrrieved, the parents
filed the appeal.
    Allowing the appeal, the Court.
                                                                G
    HELD: 1.1. The evidence establishes that the
condition of the victim after the accident has become very
pathetic. He shall not be in a position to speak for his life
and shall not be in a position to do anything exc~pt
                            451                                 H
    452      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   breathing for his life. He would require care of a person
    every day like a child. Further, the appellants had in fact
    proved that they had spent a huge sum towards nursing
    and medical expenses for treating their son as also for
    purchasing certain instruments to facilitate his living. In
8   the circumstances, the Tribunal was not at all lenient in
    the matter of awarding the compensation, which was just
    and proper. [para 9, 10 and 12) [454-G; 455-A-B;· 456-A]
       1.2 At times it is not possible to award compensation
  strictly in accordance with the law laid down, as in a
C particular case it may not be just also. Though, the High
  Court has rightly followed the principle laid dowri in the
  case of Sar/a Verma, the amount of compensation
  awarded by the Tribunal is more' just. The judgment of the
  High Court is set asi~e arnf the order of the Tribunal
D restored. [para 12-14) [456-C, E-G]
         *Sar/a Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation 2009
                   =
    (5) SCR 1098 2009(6) SCC 121- referred to.
                         Case Law Reference:
E         2009 (5) SCR 1098      referred to            para 8
        CIVIL APPELLATE-JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    8283 of 2013.
        From the Judgment & Order dated 27.12.2010 of the High
F   Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil
    Misc. Appeal No. 1016/2007.
          Venkateswara Rao Anumolu fo~ the Appellant
          A.K. De, Debasis Misra for the Respondents.
G         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted.
      2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered by the
  Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016 of
H 2007 on 27th December, 2010, this appeal has been preferred
R. VENKATA RAMANA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 453
          CO. LTD. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
on behalf of the claimants in a Motor Accident Claim Petition.         A
     3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nut shell,
are as under:
      On account of an accident, which had taken place on 31st
July, 2000, around 6 p.m., son of the appellants had suffered          B
severe injuries. He had to be hospitalized and operations had
to be performed. The injured was left with 80% disability due
to the accident. Looking at the nature of injuries suffered by the
injured, a claim for Rs.25,07,564/- was made by the appellants
and the injured, who was also a claimant before the Tribunal           c
but at present, possibly because of his inability, the appeal has
been filed by the parents. .
     4. After considering the evidence and looking at the injuries
suffered and physical condition of the injured, namely, Rajanala
Ravi Krishna, who was hardly 17 years old at the time of the           o
accident, by way of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.1'8, 75,800/- with interest @ 7 .5 % from the date of
presentation of the petition till realization of the said amount.
      5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal,
 respondent No.1 - United India Insurance Company Ltd., filed          E
 Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016 of 2007 praying that the amount
 of compensation be reduced as it was much on higher side.
 After hearing the concerned counsel and looking at the
 evidence, the High Court allowed the civil misc. appeal by
.reducing the amount of compensation to a sum of                       F
 Rs.12,45,800/- with interest thereon to the claimants.
    6. Being aggrieved by the reduction in the amount of
compensation, the parents of the 17 years old injured student
have approached this c.ourt by way of this appeal.
                                                                       G
    7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had
submitted that the Tribunal had awarded just and proper
compensation which ought not to have been reduced by the
High Court. The learned counsel had taken us through the order
passed by the Tribunal and the relevant evidence. Upon perusal
                                                                       H
    454     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   of the evidence, we find that the son of the appellants, .as a
    result of the accident, is suffering from 80% permanent
    disability. The Neurologist who had been examined by the
    Tribunal had stated that there· was no chance of any
    improvement in the health of the injured. Upon perusal of the
B . evidence, we find that Rajanala Ravi Krishna, as a result of the
    accident, tracheotomy and other surgeries performed on him,
    he has practically become bedridden, except for the fact that
    he can be moved in a wheel chair. He requires continuous
    nursing because he is unable to perform his day to day
c activities. In the circumstances, the learned counsel had
    submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the
    Tribunal was just and proper.
       8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
  the respondent - Insurance Company had submitted that the
D Tribunal had awarded huge amount of compensation to a
  person who was not having any income and was only a student,
  whose future was not known to any one. In the said
  circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the High
  Court had rightly considered the judgment delivered by this
E Court in the case of Sar/a Verma v. Delhi Road Transport
  Corporation 2009(6) sec 121 while awarding just amount of
  compensation. He had supported the judgment delivered by the
  High Court and had submitted that the present appeal be
  dismissed.
F       9. Upon hearing the learned counsel and looking at the
  impugned judgment and the order of the Tribunal as well as the
  evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants, we are of the view
  that the Tribunal was not at all lenient in the matter of awarding
  the compensation and the compensation awarded by the
G Tribunal was just and proper.
        10. We have considered the facts and the injuries suffered
   by Rajanala Ravi Krishna, who was hardly 17 years old student
   at the time of the accident. We need not go into the negligence
   part of the driver because even in the criminal proceedings it ·
H .had been held that the driver of the vehicle was guilty of rash
                                                               .
R. VENKATA RAMANA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 455
              CO. LTD. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
and negligent driving. Upon perusal of the evidence, we find           A
that the condition of Rajanala Ravi Krishna, after the accident
has become very pathetic. Evidence adduced by the
Neurologist and other evidence also reveal that Rajanala Ravi
Krishna shall not be in a position to speak for his life and shall
not be in a position to do anything except breathing for his life,     B
unless a miracle happens. He would require care of a person
every day so as to see that he is given food, bath etc. and so
as to enable him even in the matter of answering natural call. It
would be worth producing the reaction of the Tribunal after
appreciating evidence of the doctor and the said portion of the        c
Tribunal's order has been even reproduced by the High Court
in its judgment:
     "It is not in dispute that because of this accident the injured
     petitioner who appears to be an active and bright student
     from Exs.A.481 to A.487, he lost all the function of his all      D
     four limbs on account of the severe injuries sustained by
     him. I have myself questioned PW.2 to find out the
     graveness of the injuries that are sustained by the injured
     third petitioner. It has been the evidence of PW.2 that there
     is no possibility of the injured petitioner regaining normal      E
     power of all the four limbs inspite of any amount of
     treatment. The patient require physio therapy throughout
     his life and assistance of some person for all his activities.
     PW.2 has also stated that it is difficult to say even by the
     time he was giving evidence whether the patient could             F
     regain his voice, PW.2 further stated that the patient
     requires regular medication of at least Rs.500/- per day
     for his subsistence. PW.2 also stated the patient requires
     some bodies assistance even for taking food and finally
     PW.2 stated that the patient is medically described as in         G
     a "vegitiative state" and patient is called as "spastic quadric
     paresys".
    11. Looking at the aforestated facts which even the High
Court had noticed, we feel that the Tribunal can not be said to
have awarded more amount by way of compensation.                       H
    456      SUPREME C04RT REPORTS                     [2013) 9 S.C.R.


A       12. From the order of the tribunal, we find that the appellants
  had in fact proved that they had spent Rs.3,49, 128/- towards
  medical expenses for treating their son. They had to purchase
  certain instruments worth Rs.58,642/- for making life of their son
  comfortable and Rs.31,000/- had been spent towards nursing
B and Rs.1,37 ,0001~ had to be spent for Physiotherapis~. Looking
  at the fact that Rajanala Ravi Krishna will have to remain
  dependant for his whole life on someone and looking at the
  observations made by the Tribunal, which have been
  reproduced hereinabove, in our opinion, his life is very
c miserable and there would be substantial financial burden on
  the appellants for the entire life of their injured son. At times it
  is not possible to award compensation strictly in accordance
  with the law laid down as in a particular case it may not be just
  also. We are hesitant to say that it is a reality of life that at times
  life of an injured or sick person becomes more miserable for
0
  the person and for the family members than the death. Here is
  one such case where the appellants, even during their retired
  life will have to take care of their son like a child especially
  when they would have expected the son to take their care.
E       13. Though, the High Court has rightly followed the principle
  laid down in the case of Sar/a Verma (supra), in our opinion,
  the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribl.lnal is more
  just. The Tribunal awarded a lump sum of Rs.10 lacs and the
  amount of expenditure incurred by the appellants for treating
F their son. The total amount awarded by the Tribunal was
   Rs.18, 75,800/- which, in our opinion, is not too much and' in our
                           .
  opinion, the said amount should be awarded to th'e appellants .
       14. In the circumstances, we quash and· set aside the
  judgment delivered by the High Court and restore the order of
G the Tribunal. The amount of compensation determined by the
  Tribunal along with interest @ 7.5 % from the date of
  presentation of the claim petition till its realization shall be paid
  to the appellants.
        · 15. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
H . R.P.                                              .Appeal allowed.