SRI B.T. KRISHNAPPAversusTHE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER

                    [2010] 5 S.C.R. 657


                   SRI B.T. KRISHNAPPA                          A
                              v.
   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE
           CO~PANY LTD. AND ANOTHER
            (Civil Appeal No. 4027 of 2010)
                                                                B
                      APRIL 30, 2010
   [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 - Compensation -
Future loss of earning - Claimant aged 50 years working as C
mason - In motor accident, suffered multiple fractures
resulting in shortening of rjght leg by 3.5 ems - Tribunal
assessed disability at 20% and awarded compensation of
Rs.1.55 lacs - High Court enhanced compensation by
Rs. 34000 - On appeal, held: Appel/ant had suffered an D
irreversible damage to his right leg posing difficulties for him
in carrying out his avocation as a mason - High Court while
making observation that the Tribunal's compensation under
the heads "loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss
of earnings during laid up period" was on the lower side, did E
not make its own assessment under these heads - These
areas needed proper introspection and a more sensitive
approach as the appellant represented weaker section of the
community - Matter remitted to High Court for consideration
afresh.
                                                                 F
     The appellant aged 50 years was working as a
mason. On the fateful day, while he was crossing the
road, a motorcycle hit him resulting in bone fractures,
head and other injuries all over the body. He was
hospitalized for about 2 weeks and was under medical G
treatment for about 6 months after discharge from
hospital. MACT awarded him a compensation of Rs.1.55
lacs. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation,
appellant filed appeal before High Court. High Court
                             657                                 H
    658      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A enhanced the compensation only by Rs.34,000/-. Hence
  the appeal.
       Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
    Court, the Court
B        HELD: 1.1. The High Court did no consider the
    appellant's case properly. It accepted the Tribunal's
    assessment of the body disability at 20% and observed
    that the Tribunal has paid compensation under the heads
    "loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss of
c   earnings during laid up period" on the lower side.
    However, it awarded an additional compensation only for
    future medical expenditures and did not deal with the
    aspect of future loss of earnings at all, which was not a
    correct approach. The incapacity or disability to earn
0   livelihood should be viewed not only in praesenti but in
    futuro on reasonable expectancies and taking into
    account ~eprival of earnings of a conceivable period.
    [Paras 9, 1O] [662-C-F]
          Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh and others (1990) 3
E   sec 723, relied on.
       1.2. As per the evidence of PW-2, the doctor who
  supervised the appellant's injuries and administered
  treatment in the Hospital, it was proved that the appellant
F sustained compound fractures in the tibia and fibula bone
  of the right leg. He also suffered bruises and cuts on his
  face and some parts of the body. He was operated. Even
  after his discharge, he was advised follow up treatments
  and physiotherapy and also exercise for better mqvement
G of his leg. In his affidavit before the Tribunal, PW2 stated
  that the appellant's right leg was shortened as a result
  of which he had to walk with a limp. The appellant was
  advised to use footwear with a raised sole and to
  continue with the exercises. The Tribunal noted that the
  shortening of the leg was by 3.5 ems. The Tribunal
H however, in accepting the disability of the appellant at
SRI B.T. KRISHNAPPA v. D.M., UNITED INSURANCE 659
                   CO. LTD.
48%, refused to accept the assessment of the doctor that        A
the future loss of earning would also be at 48%. It opined
that construction work involves many people and the
doctor was not right in concluding that due to the
disability on the right leg, the appellant would not be able
to do construction work. The future loss of earning was         B
assessed at a much lesser 20%. Since there was no
specific evidence regarding his income, the multiplier
method was used for assessing the compensation.
[Paras 11-14] [662-F-H; 663-A-C; 663-E-G]
      1.3. Although the Tribunal concluded by holding that      C
the assessment of future loss of earnings should 'be
made only at 20%, the High Court, while making the
observation that the Tribunal's compensation ·under the
heads "loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss
of earnings during laid up period" was on the lower side,       D
should have given reasons and made its own
assessment under these heads, since High Court, as the
first appellate authority, is an authority both on facts and
law. The High Court's orders starkly lacked in any details
on assessment of compensation Linder these. heads.              E
These areas needed proper introspection and a more
sensitive approach as the appellant being a mason and
a workman represented the weaker section of the
community. The appellant had suffered an irreversible
damage to his right leg which would pose difficulties for       F
him in carrying out his avocation as ·a mason. [Para 15]
[663-G-H; 664-A-C]
     Mis. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirma/a
Devi & others (1979) 4 SCC 365; Divisional Controller,
KSRTC v. Mahadeva Sheffy & another (2003) 7 SCC 197,            G
relied on.
    2. Long expectation of life is connected with earning
capacity. If earning capacity is reduced, that impacts life
expectancy as well. No amount of compensation can               H
         660      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2010] 5 S.C.R.


     A restore the physical frame of the appellant. Whenever any
       amount is determined as the compensation payable for
       any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to
       compensate such injury so far as money can
       compensate because it is not possible to equate the
     B money with the human sufferings or personal
       deprivations. Money cann.ot renew a broken and
       shattered physical frame. In its very nature whenever a
       tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of
       compensation in cases of accident, it involves some
·    c guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some
       amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the
       disability caused. [Paras 17-19] [664-H; 665-B-C; 665-D-
       E]
                               Case Law Reference:
     D
               (1990) 3 sec 723         relied on           Para 10
               (1979) 4 sec 365         relied on           Para 15
               (2003) 1 sec 191         relied on           Para 16
     E       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
         4027 of 2010.
             From the Judgment & Order dated 20.7.2009 of the High
         Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA No. 259 of 2008.
     F         V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant.
              A.K. De, Rajesh Kumar, Udit Kumar, Debasis Misra for
         the Respondents.
               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     G
               GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted
           2. This Appeal impugns the order of the High Court of
       Karnataka in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 259 of 2008
       dated 20.07.2009, whereby the High Court enhanced the
    ,H compensation granted by the tribunal to the appellant only to
 SRI B.T. KRISHNAPPA v. D.M., UNITED INSURANCE 661
       CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
the extent of Rs.34,000/- without disclosing adequate reasons.    A
     3. This Court finds that the High Court did not properly
consider the case for enhancement. Thus after condonation of
delay, this Court passed an order dated 05.02.2010 as follows:
    " .... Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusea   B
    the records.
    We are prima facie of the view that the impugned judgment
    of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the matter
    remitted to it for fresh disposal of the Miscellaneous First C
    Appeal filed by the petitioner because the High Cou11 has
    failed to consider the issues relevant for deciding the
    cases involving claim for compensation.
    Issue Notice to the Respondents ....... :·
    4. Pursuant thereto show cause notices were issued to the     D
respondents on 17.2.2010 and service was complete. ·
     5. The material facts are that appellant was working as a
mason and was aged 50 years at the time of accident. On the
fateful day of 08.01.2006, at about 4.30 pm, the appellant was E
crossing the road near Deepa Nursing Home, K.R. Puram,
when a motorcycle, with the registered number plate KA-05-
EW-1108 hit him. The motorcycle was being driven by the
second respondent (to be known as 'R2' hereinafter) at the time
of the accident. As a result of the accident,· the appellant F
sustained bone fractures as well as head and other injuries all
over the body. He was taken to the Deepa Nursing Home,
Bangalore where he received first aid. He was then shifted to
Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore (to be known as
'Hospital' hereinafter) the same day where he was admitted G
and received treatment as an inpatient till 21.01.2006. He
continued with the follow up treatments for about six months after
his discharge.
    6. The first Respondent Insurance Company, (to be known        /
as 'R 1' hereinafter) was also impleaded as a party as the        H
    662     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2010] 5 S.C.R.

A   motorcycle was insured with it.
        7. By the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (to
    be known as 'Tribunal' hereinafter), the appellant was awarded
    a compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- with interest@ 7.5%. R1 was
    made liable to pay the compensation to the appellant.
B
        8. On appeal, the High Court however enhanced the
    compensation by only Rs.34,000/- awarding a total of
    Rs.1,89,000/- with in!erest @ 6% per annum.
        9. On a reading of the High Court order, it is clear that High
C   Court did no consider the appellant's case properly. It accepted
    the Tribunal's assessment of the body disability at 20% and
    observed that the Tribunal has paid compensation under the
    heads "loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss of
    earnings during laid up period" on the lower side. However, it
D   awarded an additional compensation only for future medical
    expenditures and did not deal with the aspect of future loss of
    earnings at all, which we feel was not a correct approach.
          10. This Court finds that "incapacity or disability to earn
E   livelihood would have to be viewed not only in praesenti but in
    futuro on reasonable expectancies and taking into account
    deprival of earnings of a conceivable period." This was [aid
    down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra vs. Randhir Singh and
    others, (1990) 3 SCC 723. In page 726, para 7, those above
    quoted observations were made.
F
         11. The Tribunal examined the doctor who supervised the
    appellant's injuries and administered treatment in the Hospital,
    Dr. S. Rajanna, as PW2.
         12. As per the evidence of PW2, it was proved that the
G   appellant sustained compound fractures in the tibia and fibula
    bone of the right leg. He also suffered bruises and cuts on his
    face and some parts of the body. He had to be operated upon
                                                              -~
    and the operation was done on 09.01.2006. Even after his
    dis9harge, he was advised follow up treatments and
H
SRI B.T. KRISHNAPPA v. D.M., UNITED INSURANCE 663
      CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
physiotherapy and also exercise for better movement of his leg.     A
      13. In his affidavit dated 23.05.2007 before the Tribunal,
the PW2 states that he examined the appellant for asseS$ment
of the percentage of disability on 17.04,2007. He recorded that
the appellant's right leg was shortened as a result of which he
had to walk with a limp. Thus the appellant was advised to use 8
footwear with a raised sole and continue with the exercises.
The Tribunal later noted that the shortening of the leg was by
3.5 ems. The High Court should have considered that appellant,
being a mason, these injuries would cause considerable
problem in moving his knee and ankle. PW2, in the disability C
certificate clearly stated:
    "Due to the above mentioned disabilities, he cannot walk
    like a normal person, cannot sit crossed leg, cannot squat,
    cannot lift any weight, cannot climb the stairs without         D
    support .
    ... I am of the opinion that the ... disability is 48% of the
    (right) lower limb and 48% disability to the whole body. In
    view of this disability, the petitioner cannot do mason work
    and cannot do any other manual work also"                       E
     14. The Tribunal however, in accepting the disability of the
appellant at 48%, refused to accept the assessment of the
doctor that the future loss of earning will also be at 48%. It
opined that construction work involves many people and the .
                                                                    1
doctor is not right in concluding that due to the disability qn the
right leg, the appellant would not be able to do constructi:m
work. Therefore, the future loss of earning was assessed at a
much lesser 20%. Since there was no specific evidence
regarding his income, the multiplier method was used for G
assessing the compensation.
     15. Although ·the Tribunal concluded by holding that the
assessment of future loss of earnings should be made only at
20%, we feel that the High Court, while making the observation
that the Tribunal's compensation under the heads "loss of           8
        664       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 5 S.C.R.


    A   amenities and enjoyment of life and loss of earnings during laid
        up period" was on the lower side, should have given reasons
        and made its own assessment under these heads, since High
        Court, as the first appellate authority, is an authority both on facts
        and law ..The High Court's orders starkly lack in any details on
    B   assessment of compensation under these heads. These areas
        need proper introspection and a more sensitive approach as
        the appellant being a mason and a workman represents the
        weaker section of the community. The appellant had suffered
        an irreversible damage to his right leg which will pose
    C   difficulties for him in carrying out his avocation as a mason. This
        Court in Mis. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt.
        Nirmala Devi & others, (1979) 4 SCC 365, has observed that:
              " .... The jurisprudence of compensation for·motor accidents
              must develop in the direction of no-fault liability and the
    D         determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly
              since the law values life and limb in a free country in
              generous scales ... " [at page 366, para 2 ]
             16. In the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs.
    E   Mahadeva Sheffy & another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, where the
        claimant was also a mason, this Court held that:
              "....... It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss
              of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales.
              Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the
    F         claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed
              should be in accordance with the injury. An injury may bring
              about many consequences like loss of earning capacity,
              loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential
              losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for mental
    G         and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened
              or that he or she cannot enjoy life, which has been curtailed
"             because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of
              life is impaired .... " [at page 204, Para 15.]
            17. Long expectation of life is connected with earning
    H · capacity. If earning capacity is reduced, which is the case in
SRI B.T. KRISHNAPPA v. D.M., UNITED INSURANCE 665
      CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
the present situation, that impacts life expectancy as well.            A
     18. Therefore, while fixing compensation in cases of injury
affecting earning capacity the Court must remember:
       " .... No amount of compensation can restore the physical
       frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by          B
       courts that whenever any amount is determined as the
       compensation payable for any injury suffered during an
       accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far
       as money can compensate" because it is impossible to
       equate the money with the human sufferings or personal           c
       deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered
       physical frame." [See R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control
       (India) (P) Ltd. & others, (1995) 1 SCC 551, at page 556,
       para 10]
       19. Further, the Court in the same case also held that:          D

       "In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required
       to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it
       involves some guesswork, some hypothetical
       consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the           E
       nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid
       elements have to be viewed with objective standards. [at
       page 557, para 12]

       20. Thus, we feel that the appeal needs to be remanded
to the High Court so that it can consider the matter afresh. The        F
High Court, we expect, will consider the case of enhancement
of compensation to the appellant in its proper perspective and
keeping in mind the factual aspects of the case and in the light
of the views expressed by this Court in several judgments,
discussed above.                                                        G

       21. The High Court is requested to deal with the matter
with utmost expedition since it concerns compensating an
injured workman. The appeal is allowed. No costs.

D.G.                                              Appeal allowed.       'H