Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Kumari Laxmisree vs The State Of Karnataka The State Of … on 5 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4493 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.2695 of 2024)
KUMARI LAXMISREE … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRCTC DEPOT, BENGALURU. … RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
Time taken for Time taken for Time taken for
disposal of the disposal of appeal disposal of the
claim petition by the High Court appeal in this Court
3 years 8 months 4 years 4 months 1 year 2 months
Leave granted
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
dated 17th April, 2023, passed in Miscellaneous First
Date: 2025.03.29
16:37:36 IST
Reason:
SLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 1 of 12
Appeal No. 10130/2018 (MV-I) by the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru, which, in turn was preferred
against the order dated 26th September, 2018 in M.V.C
No.982/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru City, SCCH-4.
3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 11th
August, 2013, the claimant-appellant, then aged 12 years,
after practising dance class for the Independence Day
Program at her school, was returning home in an auto-
rickshaw at Tuppadamaduvina Gate, Bindiganavile,
Nelamangala. While crossing the road after alighting
from an auto-rickshaw, the KSRTC Bus (hereinafter
referred to as the “offending vehicle”) bearing
registration number K.A.09.F.3563 collided with the
claimant-appellant in a rash and negligent manner,
dragging her for a certain distance. Consequently, the
front wheel of the offending vehicle ran over both her
legs and caused multiple injuries to the claimant-
appellant. She initially received first aid at Nelamangala
Hospital, was then transferred to the Beluru IT Hospital,
and, subsequently, shifted to Hosmat Hospital, where she
was treated for two months in the ICU. On account of
multiple fractures and injuries suffered, both the legs of
the claimant-appellant above the knee were amputated.
SLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 2 of 12
4. In connection with this incident, a criminal case was
registered against the driver of the offending vehicle
under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
5. A claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimant-
appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
1989, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation to the
tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, submitting therein that the
claimant-appellant was still receiving treatment and has
already spent more than Rs.10 Lakhs on medical and
conveyance. After the incident, due to the injuries
suffered, she was completely bedridden and needed the
assistance of a female servant.
6. The Tribunal, vide its order, held that the respondent,
being the owner and insurer, is liable to pay an amount of
Rs.18,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant-
appellant, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal assessed
the disability suffered by her as 100%. An amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- was awarded towards the loss of income
due to permanent disability and further awarded varied
compensation towards different heads.
SLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 3 of 12
7. Aggrieved, the claimant-appellant filed an appeal before
the High Court seeking enhancement of the amount of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8. The High Court, vide the impugned order, partly allowed
the appeal and enhanced the compensation amount by an
amount of Rs.34,69,200/-, the total compensation arrived
at was Rs.53,19,200/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum. The Court assessed the notional income of the
claimant-appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month as per the cost
of living and wages at the time of the incident. In
furtherance of the exposition of law in Master Ayush v.
the Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Anr.1, the Court awarded Rs.24,19,200/- under the
head of loss of future earnings due to disability. Further
reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in
Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain v. Regional
Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation2, to
award an amount of Rs.18,00,000/-, including the cost of
Prosthetic Limbs under the head of Future Medical
Expenses, and further enhance the compensation amount
under various heads.
1 (2022) 7 SCC 738
2 2022 SCC Online 1701
SLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 4 of 12
9. Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant is now before us.
The significant points of challenge are as follows:
a. The notional income of Rs.8,000/- as assessed by the
High Court, is on the lower side.
b. The High Court wrongly considered the cost of a
Prosthetic Leg at Rs.2,88,400/-; it should be
Rs.4,43,070/-.
c. Attendant Charges have not been appropriately
awarded.
d. Interest should be 12%, and Litigation expenses
should be awarded to the claimant-appellant.
10.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
11.On the notional income of the claimant-appellant, in our
view, Rs.8,000/- per month is on the lower side. The
accident took place in the year 2013, when the child was
just 12 years of age and had a bright future ahead of her.
She was having an all-round development and was
multifaceted in her interests. The amputation of her legs,
undoubtedly, have deteriorated her prospects of pursuing
her interests in life. In the attending facts and
circumstances, we deem it appropriate to fix her notional
income at Rs.10,000/- per month.
SLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 5 of 12
12.However, we agree with the claimant-appellant’s
submission on the amount awarded under other heads
being on the lower side. Coming to the future medical
expenses, the High Court granted an amount of
Rs.18,00,000/- under the head of future medical
expenses, including the cost of Prosthetic Limbs at
Rs.2,88,000/-. From a bare perusal of the Letter of
Quotation annexed as Annexure P-4 by the claimant-
appellant, it is evident that the total cost of one pair of
Prosthetic Limbs is Rs.4,43,070/-.
Thereafter, on perusal of the evidence of PW-7 annexed
as Annexure P-5, it is apparent that the claimant-
appellant is required to change and maintain the artificial
limb at least once every 5 years. In similar circumstances,
this court in Mohd. Sabeer (supra) observed that:
“23. As per the current compensation
given for the prosthetic limb and its
maintenance, it would last the appellant for
only 15 years, even if we were to assume
that the limb would not need to be replaced
after a few years. The appellant was only 37
years at the time of the accident, and it
would be reasonable to assume that he
would live till he is 70 years old if not more.
We are of the opinion that the appellant
must be compensated so that he is able toSLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 6 of 12
purchase three prosthetic limbs in his
lifetime and is able to maintain the same at
least till he has reached 70 years of age. For
the Prosthetic limbs alone, the appellant is
to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000
and for maintenance of the same he is to be
awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-.”Therefore, in the present case, the claimant would have to
change her Prosthetic Legs, atleast six times during her lifetime.
Therefore, in our view, we are inclined to award the
compensation amount of Rs.26,58,420/- (4,43,070 X 6) towards
the head of artificial limbs.
13.For the purpose of attendant charges, it is not in dispute
that the claimant-appellant suffered 100% permanent
disability due to the accident. She would require lifelong
support and an attendant to assist her in his daily
activities. This Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand3 had
observed that for determining the attendant charges, the
requirement of the claimant must be taken into
consideration.
14.In our view, in furtherance of the above-mentioned
explosion of law, it would be just and fair to award a
compensation of Rs.21,60,000/- (Rs. 10,000 x 12 x 18) to
3 (2020) 4 SCC 413
SLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 7 of 12
the claimant-appellant, towards the head of attendant
charges.
15.As a result of the discussion above, the compensation
payable to the claimant-appellant in accordance with the
law is as follows:
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
Compensation Amount Awarded In Accordance with:
Heads
Monthly Income Rs.10,000/- Master Ayush v. the
Branch Manager,
Yearly Income Rs.1,20,000/- Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Anr.
(2022) 7 SCC 738
Para 10Future Prospects 1,20,000/- + 48,000/-
(40%) = Rs.1,68,000/- National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
Multiplier (18) 1,68,000/- X 18 (2017) 16 SCC 680
= Rs.30,24,000/- Para 42 and 59
Permanent 100% of 30,24,000/- Arvind Kumar Mishra v.
Disability (100%) = Rs.30,24,000/- New India Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
(2010) 10 SCC 254
Para 13 and 14
Loss of
Income/Future Rs.30,24,000/-
Earnings due to
Disability
Attendant Charges 10,000 X 12 X 18
SLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 8 of 12
= Rs.21,60,000 Kajal v. Jagdish Chand
Future Medical Rs.5,00,000/- (2020) 4 SCC 413
Expenditure Para 25, 28 and 29
Marriage Prospects Rs.3,00,000/-
Special Diet & Rs.1,00,000/- Sidram v. Divisional
Transportation Manager, United India
Insurance Ltd.
(2023) 3 SCC 439
Para 89
Pain and Suffering Rs.10,00,000/- K.S. Muralidhar v. R.
Subbulakshmi and Anr.
2024 SCC Online SC
3385
Para 13 and 14
Loss of Income
during treatment Rs.10,000/- -
(for 28 Days)
Loss of Amenities Rs.2,00,000/- Mohd. Sabeer alias
Shabir Hussain v.
Regional Manager, U.P.
Artificial Limb Rs.26,58,420/- State Road Transport
Corporation,
(2022) SCC Online SC
1701
Para 23 and 26
TOTAL Rs.99,52,420/-
Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:
MACT High Court This Court
Rs.18,50,000/- Rs.53,19,200/- Rs.99,52,420/-
SLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 9 of 12
16. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The
impugned award dated 26th September, 2018 in M.V.C No.982
of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru City, SCCH-4, as modified by the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru vide the impugned order dated 17th
April, 2023, passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.10130 of
2018 stands modified accordingly. Interest is to be paid as
awarded by the Tribunal.
17. The amount be directly remitted in terms of the directions
issued by the Tribunal. The particulars of the bank account are
to be immediately supplied by the learned counsel for the
appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent. The amount
be remitted positively within a period of four weeks, thereafter.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……….………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………………J.
SLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 10 of 12
(MANMOHAN)
New Delhi;
5th March, 2025
SLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 11 of 12
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.16 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
2695/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 17-04-2023 in MFA No. 10130/2018 passed by the
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]
KUMARI LAXMISREE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRCTC Depot, Bengaluru Respondent(s)
(IA No.12007/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 05-03-2025 This petition was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Arjun Krishnan, AOR
Mr. Arpit Lahoti, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mrs. T.S Shanthi, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Verma, AOR
Ms. Sneha Irine Kachhap, Adv.
Mr. Amit J, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Appeal is allowed in terms of signed order.
3. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (VINOD KUMAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
SLP (C) No. 2695 of 2024 Page 12 of 12
[ad_1]
Source link