Supreme Court of India
SRI ANTHONY ALIAS ANTHONY SWAMYversusTHE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C.
- Citation
- 2020 INSC 421
- Decided
- 10 June 2020
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R F NARIMAN
Holding
The appellant is entitled to compensation based on a 75% permanent physical functional disability (37.5% of the whole body), resulting in a total award of Rs 11,97,350 with interest at 6% from the date of petition.
Summary
The appellant, a painter, was injured in a bus accident caused by the driver’s negligence, resulting in amputation of his left leg. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 4,08,850 as compensation, which the Karnataka High Court enhanced to Rs 5,10,350. The appellant contended that the award was grossly inadequate because the High Court reduced his permanent physical functional disability from 75% (left leg) / 37.5% of the whole body, as assessed by the treating doctor, to only 25% of the whole body without reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the disability must be assessed at 75% (37.5% of the whole body) and that loss of future earnings should be calculated on that basis, using a multiplier of 14 and a revised monthly salary of Rs 5,500. It also increased future medical expenses by Rs 2,50,000 and loss of amenities by Rs 50,000, ordering a total compensation of Rs 11,97,350 with interest at 6% from the date of petition. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The correctness of the High Court's reduction of the appellant's permanent physical functional disability from 75% (left leg) / 37.5% whole‑body to 25% whole‑body for compensation purposes.
- How loss of future earnings should be quantified when permanent disability affects the claimant's earning capacity under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- The appropriate quantum of future medical expenses for prosthetic limb replacements.
- The award for loss of amenities arising from social deprivation caused by the disability.
- Whether interest at 6% per annum should be awarded from the date of filing of the petition.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 140
Subjects
Motor accident compensationPermanent physical functional disabilityLoss of future earningsMultiplier methodFuture medical expensesLoss of amenitiesMotor Vehicles Act
Judgment
860 [2020]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 5 S.C.R. 860 [2020] 5 S.C.R.
A SRI ANTHONY ALIAS ANTHONY SWAMY
v.
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C.
(Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2020)
B JUNE 10, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ. ]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Permanent
physical functional disability – Appellant met with an accident while
travelling in respondent Corporation’s bus, when the bus driver hit
C a lorry from behind – Left leg of the appellant had to be amputated
– Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,08,850/- – Enhanced by
High Court to Rs.5,10,350/- – On appeal by the appellant
contending that compensation is grossly inadequate, held: PW3-
doctor had assessed the physical functional disability of the left leg
D of the appellant at 75% and total body disability at 37.5% – High
Court assessed the physical disability at 25% of the whole body
only – If the 75% physical disability had rendered the appellant
permanently disabled from pursuing his normal vocation of a painter
or any similar work, it is difficult to comprehend the grant of
compensation to him in ratio to the disability to the whole body –
E Compensation recalculated at Rs.11,97,350/- with interest @ 6%.
from the date of petition till the realization.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 PW.3 had assessed the physical functional
disability of the left leg of the appellant at 75% and total body
F disability at 37.5%. The High Court considered it proper to assess
the physical disability at 25% of the whole body only. There is no
discussion for this reduction in percentage, much less any
consideration of the nature of permanent functional disability
suffered by the appellant. If the 75% physical disability has
G rendered the appellant permanently disabled from pursuing his
normal vocation or any similar work, it is difficult to comprehend
the grant of compensation to him in ratio to the disability to the
whole body. The appellant is held entitled to compensation for
loss of future earning based on his 75% permanent physical
functional disability recalculated with the salary of Rs.5,500/-with
H
860
SRI ANTHONY ALIAS ANTHONY SWAMY v. 861
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C.
multiplier of 14 at Rs. 6,93,000/-. The High Court also erred in A
granting a sum of Rs.50,000/- only towards future medical
expenses. PW.3 deposed that the appellant would require three
more replacements of the artificial left leg during his lifetime.
The same is enhanced by Rs.2,50,000/- in addition to that granted
by the High Court. The compensation granted towards loss of
amenities is also enhanced to Rs.50,000/- considering that the B
appellant was deprived of social mixing as deposed by PW.3. The
modified award of the High Court is accordingly to be paid along
with interest @ 6 per cent from the date of petition till the
realization. [Paras 12, 14][863-D-H; 866-G; 867-B-C]
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 SCC C
343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179; Nagarajappa v. Divisional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2011)
13 SCC 323 : [2011] 6 SCR 70 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
D
[2010] 13 SCR 179 relied on Para 10
[2011] 6 SCR 70 relied on Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2551
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2016 of the High Court E
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA No. 843 of 2012 (MV).
Ashwin Kotemath, Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, S. N. Bhat, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
NAVIN SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is in appeal aggrieved by the order of the High
Court, claiming inadequacy of compensation granted to him in a motor
accident case. G
3. The appellant was travelling in a bus of the respondent
Corporation and met with an accident on 19.02.2010, due to rash and
negligent driving of the bus driver who hit a lorry from behind. As a
consequence of the injuries suffered, the left leg of the appellant had to
be amputated. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,08,850/-. H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.
A The High Court in appeal enhanced the same to Rs.5,10,350/-. The appeal
preferred by the respondent Corporation was dismissed.
4. Shri Ashwin Kotemath, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the compensation enhanced by the High Court is niggardly
and grossly inadequate considering the nature of injuries suffered. The
B appellant was a painter by vocation. He had a daily income of Rs.300/-
cumulated at Rs.9,000/- per month, supported by the evidence of his
employer PW.2, which has been wrongly rejected. The permanent
disability of the appellant contrary to the evidence of PW.3, Dr. S.
Ramachandra the treating Doctor, has been wrongly fixed at 25% of the
whole body without any reasoning to support the same, in the nature of
C the injury, suffering, future medical treatment and loss of future income
caused to the appellant.
5. Shri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted
that the High Court has reasonably enhanced the compensation and it
calls for no interference. The appellant had failed to substantiate the
D claimed income with substantive evidence. The extent of disability
suffered has been adequately assessed. The evidence of the employer
and the treating doctor have all been considered adequately.
6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.
The appellant was initially taken to the government hospital on the date
E of the accident but was shifted to a private hospital on 25.02.2010 where
he remained as an inpatient till 16.09.2010 and also underwent surgery
requiring amputation of his left leg from above the knee. PW.3, the
treating doctor, deposed that the appellant had suffered Type III ‘B’
commuted fracture of Tibia and Fibula of the left leg with an active
F infection of Chronic Osteomyelitis emanating foul smell which prevented
him from mixing and socialising in public. There was no alternative to
amputation and fixation of an artificial leg. The physical disability suffered
by the appellant of the left lower limb was assessed at 75% which was
about 37.5% of the whole body. PW.3 further opined that the appellant
had suffered shortening of the left lower limb by 3 cms. He could not
G stand independently or walk without aid of a walker or attendant. The
appellant cannot sit cross legged, squat or use an Indian toilet. He could
not climb up and down a staircase. The appellant was incapable of any
manual work including painting. The appellant who was 45 years of age,
considering average life expectancy of 65 years would require at least
H
SRI ANTHONY ALIAS ANTHONY SWAMY v. 863
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
three further replacements of the artificial limb in his lifetime, the cost of A
which was assessed at approximately between Rs.75,000 to
Rs.1,50,000/-.
7. The High Court enhanced the monthly income of the appellant
to Rs.5,500/-. He has been awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
pain and suffering and Rs.7,350/- towards medical expenses along with B
Rs.21,000/- for attendant charges. The loss of earnings during the period
of treatment has been enhanced by the High Court to Rs.66,000/-.
Conveyance charges have been paid at Rs.10,000/-. We find no reason
to interfere to the aforesaid extent.
8. The physical disability of the appellant without any reasoning C
has been assessed at 25% of the whole body with which we are unable
to concur. The compensation granted towards loss of future earning on
account of disability at Rs.2,31,000/- is considered grossly inadequate in
the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the compensation of
Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses and only Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of amenities. D
9. PW.3 had assessed the physical functional disability of the left
leg of the appellant at 75% and total body disability at 37.5%. The High
Court has considered it proper to assess the physical disability at 25% of
the whole body only. There is no discussion for this reduction in
percentage, much less any consideration of the nature of permanent E
functional disability suffered by the appellant. The extent of physical
functional disability, in the facts of the case has to be considered in a
manner so as to grant just and proper compensation to the appellant
towards loss of future earning. The earning capacity of the appellant as
on the date of the accident stands completely negated and not reduced. F
He has been rendered permanently incapable of working as a painter or
do any manual work. Compensation for loss of future earning therefore
has to be proper and just to enable him to live a life of dignity and not
compensation which is elusive. If the 75% physical disability has rendered
the appellant permanently disabled from pursuing his normal vocation or
any similar work, it is difficult to comprehend the grant of compensation G
to him in ratio to the disability to the whole body. The appellant is therefore
held entitled to compensation for loss of future earning based on his
75% permanent physical functional disability recalculated with the salary
of Rs.5,500/-with multiplier of 14 at Rs. 6,93,000/-.
H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.
A 10. Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCC 343
lucidly sets out the principles for grant of compensation in cases of
permanent physical functional disability as follows:
“10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result
of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of
B loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact
of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal
should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent
disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning
capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss,
that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a
C permanent disability will be different from the percentage of
permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all
cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability
would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and
consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent
D disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity.
In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of
earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability
will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
E the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured;
and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money,
to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard
multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may
however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence
F and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss
of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is
approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability
in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage
for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions
G of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.)
xxxx xxxx xxxx
H
SRI ANTHONY ALIAS ANTHONY SWAMY v. 865
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the A
actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to
first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite
of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of
the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The
B
second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find
out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any
kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability,
the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and
functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he C
was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities
and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of
activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue
to earn his livelihood.
D
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the
permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed
around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual
loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is
neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the E
claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left
hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be
continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions;
and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as
in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual
physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need F
to award any compensation under the head of “loss of future
earnings”, if the claimant continues in government service, though
he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of
amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the
injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found G
suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which
he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may
therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with
lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award
under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of
the reduced earning capacity. H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.
A 11. In Nagarajappa vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, 2011 (13) SCC 323, the physical disability
of the upper limb was determined as 68% in proportion to 22-23% of the
whole-body. This court opined as follows:
“9. On perusal of the doctor’s evidence with respect to the nature
B of injuries suffered by the appellant, the appellant was found, inter
alia, to be suffering from the following disabilities as a result of
the accident—”gross deformity of the left forearm, wrist and hand,
wasting and weakness of the muscles of the left upper limb and
shortening of the left upper limb by 1 cm”. As a result, the doctor
stated that the appellant could not work as a coolie and could not
C also do any other manual work. The doctor assessed permanent
residual physical disability of the upper limb at 68% and 22-23%
of the whole body.
10. The appellant is working as a manual labourer, for which he
requires the use of both his hands. The fact that the accident has
D left him with one useless hand will severely affect his ability to
perform his work as a coolie or any other manual work, and this
has also been certified by the doctor. Thus, while awarding
compensation it has to be kept in mind that the appellant is to do
manual work for the rest of his life without full use of his left
E hand, and this is bound to affect the quality of his work and also
his ability to find work considering his disability. Hence, while
computing loss of future income, disability should be taken to be
68% and not 20%, as was done by the Tribunal and the High
Court. Our view is supported by the ratio in Raj Kumar and from
the fact that the appellant is severely hampered and perhaps forever
F handicapped from performing his occupation as a coolie.”
12. The High Court also erred in granting a sum of Rs.50,000/-
only towards future medical expenses. PW.3 deposed that the appellant
would require three more replacements of the artificial left leg during his
lifetime. We consider it proper to enhance the same by Rs.2,50,000/- in
G addition to that granted by the High Court. The compensation granted
towards loss of amenities is also enhanced to Rs.50,000/- considering
that the appellant was deprived of social mixing as deposed by PW.3.
13. Thus, the compensation awarded by the High Court is modified
and recalculated as under:
H
SRI ANTHONY ALIAS ANTHONY SWAMY v. 867
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
Sr. Particulars Amount A
No. (in Rs.)
1. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000
2. Medical expenses 7,350
3. Attendant charges 21,000
4. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment 66,000
5. Conveyance charges 10,000
6. Loss of future earnings on account of disability 6,93,000
7. Future medical expenses 2,50,000 B
8. Loss of amenities 50,000
TOTAL 11,97,350
14. We modify the award of the High Court accordingly to be
paid along with interest @ 6 per cent from the date of petition till the
realization. C
15. The appeal is allowed.
Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor accident compensation"Sign in to search