Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs D.Subramanyam, on 28 January, 2025
APHC010349912021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3470]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 490/2021
Between:
The New India Assurance Co.ltd. ...APPELLANT
AND
D Subramanyam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. C PRAKASH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K V RAGHU VEER
The Court made the following:
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
M.A.C.M.A.No.490 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay)
The present M.A.C.M.A is filed questioning the Judgment and
Decree dated 25.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.494 of 2016 passed
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,
Kurnool.
2. The Insurance Company is the Appellant herein.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
On the intervening night of 21/22.06 .2015, the Claimant along
with his friend by name M.V. Raghava Satish went to Chennamma Circle,
Kallur Estate of Kurnool Town on his motor cycle. While the Claimant was
waiting by the side of his motorcycle on the road side margin,
the offending lorry bearing No.AP 02 X 8995 owned by the Respondent
No.1 and driven by the Respondent No.3 came from Gooty Town side in
a rash and negligent manner dashed the Claimant and also the
motorcycle. As the Claimant suffered serious injuries, he was
immediately taken to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for medical
treatment. On the medical advice, the Claimant was shifted to Krishna
Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter called as “KIMS”) at
3Secunderabad, where he took medical treatment and was discharged on
30.06.2015. The M.V.O.P was filed under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by him in the accident. As per the particulars furnished
in the claim petition, no injuries were mentioned as fracture of right hand
wrist, right leg, the segmental fracture of bones of right leg, lacerated
wound over right elbow and grievous and bleeding injuries on the entire
body. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that due to the accident, the
Claimant is unable to sit or stand without the help of walking stick.
4. The Insurance Company filed its counter contending that the
offending lorry was not involved in the accident at all and the Claimant
had colluded with the Police and had foisted a criminal case against the
driver of the lorry for the purpose of claiming compensation. It was also
pleaded that the accident occurred on 22.06.2015, but the criminal
complaint was lodged on 13.07.2015 and there was a delay of 23 days in
lodging the complaint. It is further pleaded that the accident had occurred
on 22.06.2015, but the Petitioner filed the claim petition in the month of
October, 2016 and there was no reason, which is forthcoming for the
delay in lodging the criminal case, the delay in filing the claim petition and
the other aspects of the claim there also.
5. The Respondent Nos.1 & 3 i.e. owner and driver of the offending
vehicle respectively remained ex parte and did not contest the case. On
4
the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for
trial:-
1) Whether the accident occurred on 22.06.2015 at 12.10 a.m.
midnight near Chennamma Circle, Kallur Estate of Kurnool Town
due to rash and negligent driving of R3 being driver of lorry bearing
No.AP 02 X 8995 wherein petitioner sustained injuries?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
6. In the course of trial, the Claimant examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and got
marked Exs.A.1 to A.24 to support his claim. Ex.X.1 and Ex.C.1 were also
marked in support of the claim. On behalf of the Insurance Company,
R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked.
7. The Tribunal considering that the right leg of the Claimant was
amputated and he had underwent two surgeries in KIMS Hospital,
Hyderabad (as per the evidence of P.W.3) granted compensation of
Rs.60,00,000/- due to loss of earnings on account of partial/permanent
functional disability and in total awarded compensation of Rs.72,85,000/-
with interest @ 9% p.a. Hence, the present M.A.C.M.A is filed.
8. Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant
and Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
No.1.
5
9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the
manner in which the delay in registering the F.I.R. after lapse of 23 days
from the date of accident followed by the manner in which the Police
apprehended the driver of the offending vehicle on 18.08.2015 and the
driver of the offending vehicle admitting to the accusation before the
criminal Court on 01.09.2015 and being convicted and receiving
imposition of fine of Rs.1,000/- makes the claim highly doubtful and in the
absence of any evidence explaining these curious aspects, the claim
petition could not have been entertained by the Tribunal. In furtherance
of the said argument, it was contended that the claim petition having been
filed on 19.10.2016, it was only then the Insurance Company was
informed of the accident followed up by conviction, though there is no
limitation prescribed under the Act in filing the application makes the
claim of the ridden with suspicion. It was further contended that the
Tribunal had erred in granting compensation under the habit of loss of
earnings without determining the functional disability, vis-a-vis the nature
of business of the Claimant. It was further contended that the income of
the Claimant had actually increased as per the income tax returns filed by
the Claimant and therefore, the trial Court erred in granting compensation
on the basis of disability certificate without considering the functional
disability.
6
10. The counsel for the Respondent-Claimant in response thereto
relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi v.
Badrinarayan and others1 in support of his claim that the delay in
lodging the F.I.R. is not fatal as the primary concern of the near and dear
of the Claimant is to see that the best medical attention is given to him
rather than to go to Police Station and give complaint. As regards the
apprehension of the driver and the consequential conviction within a span
of two weeks, counsel for the Respondent contended that throwing
suspension on the Claimant is not appropriate as the Police after doing
investigation have arrested the driver and filed the charge sheet. The
Investigation by the Police cannot be doubted by the Insurance Company
as the investigation report was acted upon and conviction was imposed
by the criminal Court on the driver by imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- vide
judgment dated 01.09.2015.
11. As regards the quantum of compensation, counsel for the
Respondent contended that the compensation awarded by the trial Court
need not be interfered considering the nature of injuries and the handicap
suffered by the Claimant.
12. In the light of the submissions of the respective counsel, the
following issues fall for consideration:
1
(2011) 4 SCC 693
7
(a) Whether the delay in lodging the complaint before the Police
with regard to the accident is fatal to the case of the Claimant?
(b) Whether the methodology of compensation arrived at by the
Tribunal in the case of injuries is sustainable?
13. Issue (a): The counsel for the Appellant emphasised on delay in
lodging the complaint. In the opinion of this Court, the delay in lodging
the complaint may not be a ground to doubt the accident, as the normal
human reaction would be to immediately attend to the wellbeing of the
victim. The question of going to Police Station and lodging a complaint
would arise only after the victim is in a stable state of health and after the
shock of accident tapers off. In this case, the Claimant after being treated
at Government General Hospital, Kurnool, was immediately shifted to
KIMS, Hyderabad as apparent from the record and only after the health of
the Claimant was stabilised, the complaint before the Police was lodged.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi ‘s case (1 supra) had considered this
aspect and held that the delay in lodging the F.I.R is not determinative to
doubt the Claimants case. Paras 17, 18 and 19 thereof are relevant for
this aspect and the same are extracted for ready reference:
“17. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to
doubt the Claimant’s case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they
are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police
Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family
responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent
that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than
to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are
not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR
with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground
to deny justice to the victim.
8
18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the
evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the
FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that
there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or
engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a
delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely
on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of
cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of
criminal offences.
19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the
victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so
cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other
words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident
claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal
for such proceedings, if Claimant has been able to demonstrate
satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of
reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith
and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of
mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same
deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of
the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging
thereof supported by cogent reasons.”
14. Apart from the above, the Medical Officer of KIMS hospital,
Hyderabad had informed the jurisdictional IV Town P.S., Kurnool about
the admission of the Claimant in their hospital due to accident on the
intervening night of 22.06.2015 as per the Medico Legal Cases Register.
This document was marked as Ex.A.24 and as per this document,
intimation of accident was given to IV Town P.S., Kurnool at 12.10 p.m.
on 22.06.2015.
15. In view of the above, the issue (a) i.e. the mere delay in lodging the
complaint before the Police Station per se cannot be a ground to doubt
the Claim and therefore, Issue (a) is answered in favour of the Claimant.
9
16. Issue (b): The claim petition nor the evidence of Claimant as P.W.1
speak about any amputations. However, in the discharge summary
marked as Ex.C.1, the factum of above knee amputation was mentioned.
Apart from that, P.W.3 also spoke about amputation above knee caused
to the Claimant. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of the
Doctor Uday Krishna Myneni as P.W.3 and Ex.C.1, the amputation of the
Claimant above knee cannot be doubted. As regards the methodology of
compensation, the Tribunal awarded the same taking into consideration
the percentage of disability of the petitioner @ 80% relying on Ex.A.11
disability certificate and it adopted a multiplier of 15 while awarding
compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- towards loss of earnings due to
partial/permanent functional disability.
17. This methodology by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the law
determined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar
and another2 regarding compensation for disability. In the said case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the Tribunal should first decide
whether there is any permanent disability and the effect of such
permanent disability on the income earning ability of the Claimant. Paras
12 and 13 of the said judgment which are relevant are extracted
hereunder for ready reference:
2
(2011) 1 SCC 343
10“12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any
permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide
with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is
permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent,
whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial
disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement
of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the
permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal
concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no
question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future
earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is
permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After
the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of
the Claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his
earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the
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 ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation
under the head of loss of amenities of life). The 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 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.”
18. After considering various aspects for determining compensation,
the principles were summarised at paragraph 19 thereof and they read as
under:
“19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not
result in loss of earning capacity.
11
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the
whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of
loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss
of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent
disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of
evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is
the same as percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-Claimant or who examined
him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability
can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability.
The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be
assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age,
education and other factors.”
19. In the present case, the Claimant appears to be involved in the
business, but the nature of business is not forthcoming from the record.
The Claimant in support of his claim had filed Exs.A.6 to A.10 and A.12 to
A.14 i.e. income tax returns for the years 2012-13 to 2019-2020. As per
the income tax returns, the income of the Claimant from 2012-13 to 2019-
20 are as under:
Sl.No. Assessment Year Total Income
1. 2012-13 Rs.3,94,620/-
2. 2013-14 Rs.5,11,023/-
3. 2014-15 Rs.6,43,438/-
4. 2015-16 Rs.6,28,170/-
5. 2016-17 Rs.5,73,490/-
12
6. 2017-18 Rs.7,04,609/-
7. 2018-19 Rs.7,85,468/-
8. 2019-20 Rs.8,76,431/-
20. The income of the Claimant has apparently increased and this
aspect was admitted in the cross-examination of P.W.2 i.e. income tax
Inspector. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of P.W.2 reads
as under:
“The income of the petitioner is more in 2019-2020 when compared
to 2015-16.”
21. The heads under which compensation can be awarded in the cases
of injuries are specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Raj Kumar‘s case (2 supra) at Para 6 and the same is extracted
hereunder:
“6. The heads under which compensation is
awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses
relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous
expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which
the injured would have made had he not been injured,
comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
13
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation
will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is
only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the
Claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of
the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future
earnings on account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
22. Under pecuniary damages, the loss of income is one of the heads
for grant of compensation. Even if the Claimant is not entitled for
compensation under this particular head, the Claimant would still be
entitled for compensation under other heads/non-pecuniary damages as
explained in the following paragraphs. Towards pecuniary damages, the
Claimant would be entitled to medical expenses. The compensation
under this head should be classified into past medical expenses and
future medical expenses.
Compensation towards Medical expenses
(a) Medical Expenses: The Tribunal relied on Ex.A.5 (Medical bill for
Rs.1,13,430) and Exs.A.23 (Bunch of 13 receipts totalling to Rs.11,644/-)
and awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. Exs.A.19 to 22 are the
expenses incurred by the Claimant towards Ambulance service and
14
lodging facilities at Hyderabad when the Claimant came down to
Hyderabad for treatment at KIMS, Hospital. Therefore, the Claimant
would be entitled to ambulance expenses of Rs.12,500/- and lodging
expenses incurred by the Claimant i.e. Rs.5,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- totalling to Rs.35,000/- under Exs.A.19 to 22 respectively.
(b) Future Medical Expenses: The Claimant as stated above was
amputated above knee as per the discharge summary (Ex.C.1). The
Claimant had purchased prosthetic limb from Total Prosthetics &
Orthotics India (P) Ltd., for Rs.4,60,000/- as established vide Exs.A.16
and A.17. The Orthopaedic surgeon, who treated the Claimant was
examined as R.W.4.
23. The artificially fitted limbs would require changes in the lifetime of
the Claimant as the longevity of prosthetics will depend on how often the
Claimant wears and treats it, body changes, and activity level. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v.
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation3
considered life of prosthetic limb and awarded compensation so that the
Claimant therein can buy three prosthetic limbs and maintain the same at
least till the age of 70 years. Paragraph 23 of the said Judgment is
extracted for ready reference;
3
2022 Livelaw (SC) 1017
15
“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 to 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/-.”
24. In this case, there is no mention of the frequency at which the
prosthetic limb has to be changed. However, it is a matter of prudence
that the prosthetic limb of the Claimant would have to be changed at least
once in his lifetime. Therefore, factoring inflation vis-a-vis the cost
incurred under Exs.A.16 and 17, this Court is inclined to grant an amount
of Rs.7,50,000/- towards prosthetic limbs alone. The future medical
expenses are assessed @ Rs.50,000/-.
25. Attendant Charges: A physical frame that has been
battered and shattered cannot be restored but the compensation given,
should be in a position to help the injured to be put back in the position he
was, at least with the help of an attendant. The right leg of the Claimant
was amputated upto knee level and he would be requiring an attendant
all-through. The methodology to be arrived at in computing non-pecuniary
damages was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
16
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and others4. In the said case, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, while computing the non-pecuniary damages of a young
child whose disability was assessed at 100%, had opined that the
attendant charges should also be on the multiplier system rather than
random payment by the Courts.
26. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the
Claimant therein required two attendants and adopted a multiplier of 18
and awarded compensation of Rs.21,60,000/- under that head.
Paragraphs 22 to 24 of the said judgment are extracted as under:
“Attendant charges
22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High
Court @ Rs. 2,500/- per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs.
13,20,000/-. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system.
Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When
compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into
consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has
always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should
be followed not only for determining the compensation on
account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant
charges etc. This system was recognised by this Court in Gobald
Motor Service Ltd. vs. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1. The
multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest
payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the Claimant and also
other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various
alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as the
most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice4
(2020) 4 SCC 413
17between the parties and thus results in award of ‘just compensation’
within the meaning of the Act.
23. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the observation
of Lord Reid in Taylor vs. O’ Connor, 1971 AC 115:
“Damages to make good the loss of dependency over a period
of years must be awarded as a lump sum and that sum is generally
calculated by applying a multiplier to the amount of one year’s
dependency. That is a perfectly good method in the ordinary case but
it conceals the fact that there are two quite separate matters involved,
the present value of the series of future payments, and the discounting
of that present value to allow for the fact that for one reason or another
the person receiving the damages might never have enjoyed the whole
of the benefit of the dependency. It is quite unnecessary in the ordinary
case to deal with these matters separately. Judges and counsel have a
wealth of experience which is an adequate guide to the selection of the
multiplier and any expert evidence is rightly discouraged. But in a
case where the facts are special, I think that these matters must have
separate consideration if even rough justice is to be done and expert
evidence may be valuable or even almost essential. The special factor
in the present case is the incidence of Income Tax and, it may be,
surtax.”
24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in various
cases like Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti and Ors.,
1966 ACJ 57, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs.
Trilok Chandra and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362, Sandeep Khanduja vs.
Atul Dande and Ors, (2017) 3 SCC 351. This Court has also
recognised that Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the
multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the Claimant’s age in
mind, the multiplier in this case should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken
by the High Court.
27. The above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed in
a series of judgments of recent origin viz., Master Ayush v. The Branch
18
Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., & another 5,
Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon & another6 and Divya v.
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another7.
28. Applying the said principle to the facts of this case, the extent of
amputation of the right leg of the Claimant has to be treated as 100% as
the right leg was amputated almost up to the knee area. The Claimant
would be requiring at least two attendants all through to attend the daily
works for the rest of his life. The minimum wages for domestic workers as
per G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 01.11.2011 issued under Minimum Wages Act,
1948 is Rs.4,521/- for 8 hours. In the opinion of this Court, taking into
consideration future attendant wages, this Court fixes average monthly
attendant charges at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and adopts a multiplier of 14
as the Claimant was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. The
Claimant’s entitlement of compensation under this head, is as under:
Rs.5,000 x 12 x 14 x 2 = Rs.16,80,000/-
29. Conveyance charges: Coming to the conveyance charges,
considering the nature of amputation, the Claimant would not be in a
position to avail any public transport and this Court is of the opinion that
5
2022 Livelaw (SC) 330
6
2022 Livelaw (SC) 569
7
2022 Livelaw (SC) 892
19
the principle of multiplier method would have to be adopted even while
computing the conveyance charges to the Claimant. Therefore, this
Court is of the opinion that the conveyance charges have to be provided
to the Claimant by adopting the same multiplier. The entitlement of
compensation to the Claimant under this head is as under:
Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.8,40,000/-
30. Pain, suffering and loss of amenities: The determination of
damages towards this head is not easy and there is no accepted
methodology in giving compensation under this head. While awarding
compensation under this head, the physical disability alone is not the
criteria, but the psychological impact caused by amputation on the life of
the Claimant should also be factored in.
31. The amputation to the Claimant and persons similarly situated is
medically acknowledged, in various journals as leading to depression,
anxiety, loss of self-esteem and eventually to isolation from the social life.
With advancing age, these problems would only become more acute.
The normal joys of life like going to a movie, restaurant, travel, a stroll in
the park or bazaar etc., with his family and friends are difficult to enjoy
and a concentrated effort has to be made by people around the Claimant
in spending a normal evening like others.
20
32. This reduced quality of life and emotional distress have a traumatic
impact on the quality of life of the individual. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to grant an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards pain, physical and
psychological suffering and loss of amenities. Though no material
compensation can negate the trauma of the Claimant, the law only knows
the language of monetary compensation.
33. The Revised Compensation: Therefore, the revised
compensation payable to the Claimant is as under:
(1) Attendant charges : Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 14 x 2 = Rs.16,80,000/-
(2) Conveyance charges: Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.8,40,000/–
(3) Pain suffering and loss of amenities: = Rs.7,50,000/-
(4) Medical Expenses :
Rs.1,13,430+11,644+12,500+35,000+4,60,000
=Rs.6,32,574/-
(5) Future Medical treatment : Rs.8,00,000/-
(6) Miscellaneous expenses Rs 50,000/-
Total : Rs.47,52,574/-
34. Interest: The interest @ 9% awarded by the Tribunal is fair and
is supported by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul
Sharma & another v. National Insurance Company Limited and
21others8, Kirthi and another v. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited9, Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others10 and
R.Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,11 on this
aspect.
35. Result: The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. No order as to
costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: .01.2025
KLP
8
(2021) 6 SCC 188
9
(2021) 2 SCC 166
10
2022 SCC Online SC 1683
11
(2022) 5 SCC 107