SUBULAXMIversusM.D., TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION

                       [2012] 9 S.C.R. 962


A                          SUBULAXMI
                                V.
    M.D., TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                          & ANOTHER
                (Civil Appeal No. 7750 of 2012)
B
                      NOVEMBER 01, 2012

       (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

      Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Motor accident -
C Amputation of left leg and right foot of victim - Claim for
  compensation - Claimant aged 30 years and earning Rs.
  18,000 per annum - Tribunal granting Rs. 2,00,0001- as
  compensation with 9% interest - High Court enhancing the
  compensation amount to Rs. 2, 75, 0001- - But did not grant
D any compensation on the head permanent disability and also
  denied interest on the enhanced amount - On appeal, held:
  Denial of compensation on the head permanent disability by
  the High Court is impermissible - High Court also erred in not
  granting interest on the enhanced amount - Compensation
E amount enhanced to Rs. 6,48,6401- with 9% interest on the
  enhanced amount.

       The appellant-claimant filed an application u/s. 166 of
  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 making a claim of Rs. 6,50,000/
  - as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a
F motor accident. Her case was that the injuries resulted
  in amputation of her left leg and right foot and that she
  was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month at the time of accident.
  The tribunal granted Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation (Rs.
  86,000/- towards permanent disability; Rs. 14,000/-
G towards pain and suffering, Rs. 66,000/- for loss of future
  income, Rs. 10,000 for medical expenses, Rs. 15,000
  towards extra nourishment, Rs. 5000 for loss of income
  during treatment period and Rs. 4000/- for transport
  charges).
H                             962
      SUBULAXMI v. M.D., TAMIL NADU STATE               963
          TRANSPORT CORPORATION

     Aggrieved by the award, claimant as well as the           A
respondent-Corporation filed cross-appeals. High Court
awarded Rs. 1,50,000 on a singular head relating to
permanent disability as well as loss of future earning;
added Rs. 75,000 for replacement of artificial limb and
future medical expenses. It also granted Rs. 20,000/- for      B
pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities and
Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges. This enhanced
the compensation amount to Rs. 2,75,000/-. Hence the
present appeal is filed by the claimant for further
enhancement of compensation amount.                            c
    Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. The High Court was not justified in
awarding compensation on a singular head relating to
permanent disability and loss of future earning.               o
Compensation can be granted towards permanent
disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one head
relates to the impairment of person's capacity and the
other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss
of enjoyment of life by the person himself. [Para 5] [967-     E
H; 968-A-B]
      K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
2012 (10)SCALE 516; Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance
CompanyLimited (2011) 10 SCC 683; R.D. Hattangadi v.
Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1951) 1 SCC 551; Nizam's        F
Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009)
6 SCC 1: 2009 (9) SCR 313; Reshma Kumari v. Madan
Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422: 2009 (11) SCR 305; Arvind
Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10
SCC 254: 2010 (11) SCR 857; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar            G
(2011) 1sec 343: 201 o (13) SCR 179 - relied on.
    Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh (1990) 3 SCC
723:1990 (3)SCR 1; B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State
Transport CorporationLtd. (2011) 6 SCC 420: 2011 (6) SCR       H
    964      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A 791; Laxman v. DivisionalManager, Oriental Insurance Co.
  Ltd. and Anr. 2012 ACJ 191 - referred to.

        2. In the instant case, the tribunal had awarded a sum
    of Rs.86,000/- towards the permanent disability. The High
    Court has deleted it. The said deletion is impermissible.
8   Regard being had to the nature of injury suffered and
    further taking note of the date of accident, a sum of
    Rs.1,00,0001- on this head would be appropriate. [Para 9]
    [971-B]
C         3. The claimant was earning Rs.18,000/- per annum.
    As she has suffered 86% permanent disability, the future
    earning may be computed at 14% less and accordingly
    it is estimated that the multiplicand should be Rs.15,480/
    - per annum. At the time of accident, she was 30 years of
o   age, and hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable.
    Thus, the loss of future earning by multiplying the
    multiplicand of Rs. 15,480/- by multiplier of 18, the amount
    would come to Rs. 2,78,640/-. [Para 10] [971-C-D]
          Sar/a Verma v. D. T. C (2009) 6 SCC 121: 2009 (5) SCR
E 1098 - relied on.

       4. As regards the pain and suffering and loss of
  amenities, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted. In respect of
  other heads, namely, medical expenses, extra
F nourishment, transport charges and loss of earning
  during treatment, the amount awarded by the High Court
  is allowed to remain as such. Thus, the amount on the
  aforesaid scores would come to Rs.45,000/-. As far as the
  future replacement of artificial limbs and other medical
G expenses are concerned, keeping in view the escalation
  of price, the same is enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/-. [Para 11]
  [971-E-G]
      5. The High Court has erred in not granting interest
  on the enhanced sum. As is evincible, the tribunal had
H granted payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
      SUBULAXMI v. M.D., TAMIL NADU STATE               965
          TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the       A
interest awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and
accordingly it is directed that the interest on the
differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate
9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the date of deposit of the same. [Para 15] [972-G; 973-   B
A]

     Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological
Survey of lndiaand Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 148: 2003 (1) SCR
1229 ; Tamil Nadu StateTransport Corporation, Tanjore,
represented by its MD v.Natarajan and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC
                                                               c
137 - relied on.

                    Case Law Reference:
    2012 (10) SCALE 516        Relied on           Para 5
                                                               D
    1990 (3) SCR 1             Referred to         Para 5
    2011 (6) SCR 791           Referred to         Para 5
    2012 ACJ 191               Referred to         Para 5
                                                               E
    (2011) 10 sec 683          Relied on           Para 6
    (1951) 1 sec 551           Relied on           Para 6

    2009 (9) SCR 313           Relied on           Para 6

    2009 (11) SCR 305          Relied on           Para 6      F

    2010 (11) SCR 857          Relied on           Para 6
    2010 (13) SCR 179          Relied on           Para 6
    2009 (5) SCR 1098          Relied on           Para 10     G
    2003 (1) SCR 1229          Relied on           Para 13
    (2003) 6 sec 131           Relied on           Para 14

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7750 of 2012.                                                  H
    966       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A       From the Judgment & Order dated 14.07.2010 of the
    High Court of Madras at Madurai in C.M.A. No. 2964 of 2003
    and Cross Obj. (MD) No. 45 of 2008.

          Prachi Bajpai for the Appellant.

B         C. Paramasivam, B. Balaji for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
C        2. The appellant as claimant filed an application under
    Section 166 of the.Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the
    Act') before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srivilliputtur
    (for short 'the tribunal') forming the subject matter of MCOP
    No. 244 of 1999, putting forth a claim of Rs.6,50,000/- as
D   compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor
    vehicle accident. Her claim petition was tried along with the
    petition preferred by one Mrs. Muthammal, the applicant in
    MCOP No. 245 of 1999.

E        3. The facts which are essential to be exposited are that
    on 13th March, 1998, the claimant-appellant, aged about 30
    years, a match industry worker while travelling in a bus bearing
    registration number TN 59-N0912 belonging to the Tamil Nadu
    State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division (V), the
    respondent No. 2 before the tribunal, met with an accident
F   with another bus bearing registration number TN 59-N0912
    belonging to the Madurai Division (I) of the said Corporation,
    the respondent No. 1 therein. The accident occurred because
    of careless and negligent driving of the drivers of both the
    vehicles. In the accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries
G   which eventually resulted in the amputation of left leg below
    knee and abrasion in right shoulder and later amputation of
    right foot.. It was averred that she was earning a sum of
    Rs.1,500/J per month at the time of accident and remained in
    the hospital for a period of five and half months. Computing
H   the amount expended, pain and suffering, incapacity to have
     SUBULAXMI v. M.D., TAMIL NADU STATE                     967
   TRANSPORT CORPORATION [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

any future income and the deprivation of other amenities of life    A
and future comforts she claimed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as
compensation. The tribunal granted Rs.2,00,000/- as
compensation by award dated 22.10.2002 and fastened the
liability on both the respondents. It is necessary to state here
that the tribunal had awarded Rs.86,000/- towards permanent         B
disability assessing the same at 86%, Rs.14,000/- towards
pain and suffering, Rs.66,000/- on the head of loss of future
income, Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.15,000/-
towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- for loss of income during
the treatment period and Rs.4,000/- towards transport charges.      c
      4. Being grieved by the award, the Corporation preferred
C.M.A. No. 2964 of 2003 and the claimant preferred Cross
Objection (MD) No. 45 of 2008 for enhancement of the quantum.
The High Court, while computing the amount of compensation,
did not grant any amount for permanent disability but enhanced      D
the future income to Rs.1, 15,000/- and added Rs. 75,000/- for
replacement of artificial limb and for future medical expenses.
It also granted Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/
- towards attendant charges. On certain heads it also marginally
enhanced the amount as a consequence of which the amounts           E
stood enhanced to Rs.2,75,000/-. It is apt to mention here that
the High Court came to the conclusion that the claimant was
entitled for compensation for loss of earning capacity due to
disability and both were to be in compartment. It also did not
grant interest on the enhanced sum. In the ultimate eventuate       F
the High Court vide its judgment dated 14.7.2010 rejected the
appeal filed by respondent No. 1 and allowed the cross-
cbjection in part. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has preferred
the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of
compensation.                                                       G

    5. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts
as have been adumbrated are not in dispute. Therefore, first
we shall advert to the issue whether the High Court was justified
in awarding compensation on a singular head relating to
permanent disability and loss of future earning. In K. Suresh       H
    968        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another1, after refo/rihg
  to Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh 2 and B. Kothandapani
  v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. 3 , this Court
  expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards
  permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one
B head relates to the impairment of person's capacity and the
  other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of
  enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied
  upon Laxman v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.
  Ltd. and another4, wherein it has been laid down thus: -
c         "The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim
          of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability,
          then efforts should always be made to award adequate
          compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment,
          but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to
D         accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a
          normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have
          enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident."

       Thus, the view expressed by the High Court on this score
E is not sustainable.

       6. Be it noted, the High Court has granted Rs.20,000/- for
  pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities. In
  this context, we may profitably refer to Govind Yadav v. New
  India Insurance Company Limited5, wherein this Court after
F referring to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest
  Control (India) (P) Ltd. 6, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences
  v. Prasanth S. Dhananka 7, Reshma Kumari v. Madan
    1.   2012 (10) SCALE 516.
G 2.     (1990) 3 sec 723.
    3.   (2011 > 6 sec 420.
    4.   2012 ACJ 191.
    5.   (2011) 1o sec 683.
    6.   (1951) 1 sec 551.
H 7. (2009) 13 sec 422.
       SUBULAXMI v. M.D., TAMIL NADU STATE                   969
     TRANSPORT CORPORATION [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

Mohan 8 , Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.             A
Ltd. 9 and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar10 has laid down as under:-

      "In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar
      Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar
      v. Ajay Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and        B
      the High Courts in determining the quantum of
      compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are
      disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of
      the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts
      should always be made to award adequate compensation           C
      not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for
      the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life
      and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for
      the disability caused due to the accident."

Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state whether in the said         D
case, the compensation awarded to the claimant-victim was
just and reasonable or he was entitled to enhanced
compensation under certain heads, namely, (i) Loss of earning
and other gains due to the amputation of leg; (ii) Loss of future
earnings on account of permanent disability; (iii) Future medical    E
expenses; (iv) Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma
caused due to the amputation of leg; (v) Loss of amenities
including loss of the prospects of marriage; and (vi) Loss of
expectation of life.
                                                                     F
     7. It is seemly to state that in the said case, the tribunal
had awarded Rs.2,56,800/- and the High Court had enhanced
the same to Rs.3,06,000/-. This Court considering various
aspects granted Rs.4,53,600/- in lieu of loss of earning,
Rs.2,00,000/- towards future treatment, Rs.1,50,000/- for pain,
suffering and trauma and Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenity       G
and enjoyment of life and thereby determined the total amount

a.   c2009) 13 sec 422.
9.   c2010) 10 sec 254.
10. c2011) 1 sec 343.                                                H
    970       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A to Rs.9,53,600/-. While determining the said sum, the Bench
  observed as follows: -

          "25. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain,
          suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg
          was meager. It is not in dispute that the appellant had
B
          remained in the hospital for a period of over three months.
          It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a
          precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a
          person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident.
          Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will
c         suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma
          throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the tribunals
          and the courts should make a broad guess for the purpose
          of fixing the amount of compensation.

D         26. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was
          a young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will
          suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work.
          Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met by
          awarding him a sum of Rs1 ,50,000 in lieu of pain, suffering
E         and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg.

          27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss
          of amenities was also meager. It can only be a matter of
          imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the
          rest of his life with one artificial leg. The appellant can be
F         expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period
          he will not be able to live like a normal human being and
          will not be able to enjoy life. The prospects of his marriage
          have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and
          reasonable to award him a sum of Rs1 ,50,000 for the loss
G         of amenities and enjoyment of life."
       8. We have reproduced from the said decision in extenso,
  as the Court has dwelled upon the fundamental concept of just
  compensation regard being had to the value of life and limb
H in our country. Needless to say, the approach in such matters
     SUBULAXMI v. M.D., TAMIL NADU STATE                     971
   TRANSPORT CORPORATION [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

has to be liberal as well as a balanced one.                         A

     9. In the case at hand, th~ tribunal had awarded a sum of
Rs.86,000/- towards the permanent disability. The High Court
has deleted it. The said deletion as per our above discussion
is impermissible. In our considered opinion regard being had
                                                                     8
to the nature of injury suffered and further taking note of the
date of accident, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on this head would
be appropriate and, accordingly, we so determine.

     10. Presently, we shall proceed to compute the loss of
earning capacity. The claimant was earning Rs.1,500/- per            C
month and thereby Rs.18,000/- per annum. As she has suffered
86% permanent disability, the future earning may be computed
at 14% less and accordingly it is estimated that the multiplicand
should be Rs.15,480/- per annum. At the time of accident, she
was 30 years of age, and hence, the multiplier of 18 would be        o
applicable, as has been held in Sarla Venna v. D.   r.c.11
                                                           • Thus,

the loss of future earning by multiplying the multiplicand of
Rs.15,480/- by multiplier of 18, the amount would come to
Rs.2, 78,640/-.

     11. As far as the pain and suffering and loss of amenities      E
are concerned, we think it is appropriate to grant a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-. In respect of other heads, namely, medical
expenses, extra nourishment, transport charges and loss of
earning during treatment, the amount awarded by the High
Court is allowed to remain as such. Thus, the amount on the          F
aforesaid scores would come to Rs.45,000/-. As far as the
future replacement of artificial limbs and other medical
expenses are concerned, keeping in view the escalation of
price, we think it seemly to enhance it Rs.1,25,000/-.
                                                                     G
     12. Presently to the grant of interest. The High Court has
declined to award interest on the enhanced sum. No reason
has been ascribed therefor. Section 171 of the Act deals with
award of interest. It reads as follows: -
11. c2009) 6 sec 121.                                                H
    972       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A         "171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed. -
          Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for
          compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may
          direct that in addition to the amount of compensation
          simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from
B         such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as
          it may specify in this behalf."

          13. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General,
  Geological Survey of India and Another12, S.B. Sinha, J. in
  his opinion after referring to the earlier decisions opined that
C the question as to what should be the rate of interest would
  depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and
  award of interest would normally depend on the bank rate
  prevailing at that time. AR. Laxmanan, J. in his concurring
  opinion stated as follows: -
D
       "The rate of interest must be just and reasonable
       depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case
       and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change
       of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of
E      India from time to time, how long the case is pending,
       permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of
       suffering loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc.,
       into consideration."

         14. In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tanjore,
F represented by its MD v. Natarajan and others 13, this Court
  awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date
  of filing of claim petition on the amount of compensation.
       15. Thus analysed, we are disposed to think that the High
G Court has erred in not granting interest on the enhanced sum.
  As is evincible, the tribunal had granted payment of interest at
  the rate of 9% per annum. Considering the totality of facts and
  circumstances, we find that the interest awarded by the tribunal
    12. (2003) 3 sec 148.
H 13. (2003) 6 sec 137.
     SUBULAXMI v. M.D., TAMIL NADU STATE                     973
   TRANSPORT CORPORATION [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
is just and proper and accordingly we direct that the interest      A
on the differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate
9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the date of deposit of the same before the tribunal. The
respondent corporation is directed to deposit the differential
amount before the tribunal within a period of eight weeks from      B
today.

     16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent
indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                    c
K.K.T.                                   Appeal partly allowed.