Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of order: 6th August, 2024
HARSH MANN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
Through: Mr. A K Soni, Advocate for R-1 (Through VC)
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
ORDER
1. The present cross objection has been filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “Code”) on behalf of the appellant herein/claimant, against the impugned order and judgment dated 10th April, 2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in case bearing MACT no. 450739/2016 (hereinafter “impugned order”) seeking enhancement of the compensation with interest.
2. The relevant facts that have led to the filing of the present appeal are as follows: a) On 16th June, 2012 at about 12:10 am, the claimant/injured namely Sh. Harsh Mann was driving the vehicle (car) bearing no. HR-70U-0006 (“injured vehicle”) with Sh. Vikas Mann (father) sitting on the front left seat of the car. They were returning from Naya Bazar, Khari Baoli and when they reached Burari Crossing, their vehicle collided with a dumper bearing no. HR-56-7679 (hereinafter “offending vehicle”) which was standing idle/stationary in the middle of the road without any indication and the driver of the offending vehicle was not present in the vehicle. Due to the said accident, the injured sustained multiple injuries and was taken to the Trauma Centre and later shifted to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. b) The injured claimed compensation from the driver, owner and the insurance company by filing MACT case bearing no. 450739/16. c) In the aforementioned claim petition, the driver and the owner did not file any written statement, however, a written statement was filed by the insurance company denying the case of the claimant and admitting the insurance of the aforementioned dumper vehicle at the time of the accident. d) The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the dumper vehicle and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 33, 71, 048/- vide the impugned order dated 10th April, 2018 in favour of the injured/claimant. e) Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the present cross appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in passing the impugned award as it allowed only a meagre compensation under non-pecuniary heads to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of amenities of life and Rs. 50,000/- jointly for conveyance and special diet.
4. It is submitted that the claimant before the learned Tribunal was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and had passed 12th standard examination and was to seek admission in college.
5. It is further submitted that after completion of studies, the injured would have earned about Rs.25,000/- per month at least and he would have gotten married in the future and raised his own family and therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in not allowing compensation for loss of marriage prospects and for loss of enjoyment of life.
6. It is submitted that the claimant sustained severe head injury, became unconscious and started bleeding from ENT. Further, the medical investigations revealed that the appellant herein/cross objector suffered Right TP Depressed Fracture with multiple haemorrhagic contusions & diffuse cerebral edema which caused 72% neurological disability. It is also submitted that the appellant is under constant treatment and requires assistance for basic tasks and he is unable to perform his daily tasks and cannot eat, drink, defecate, move, bathe, etc by himself, thus, making him confined to his bed.
7. It is submitted that the appellant is in a vegetative condition and is totally dependent on others. Moreover, his neurological disability was assessed at 72% by the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Science and the neurological disability has rendered the appellant permanently disabled to the extent of 100%.
8. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed more compensation under the various heads such as for pain and sufferings, for loss of amenities, and towards expenses incurred on conveyance, and special diet.
9. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in not allowing any compensation for the future medical expense which ought to have been allowed. It ought to have noticed that expenses are still being incurred on the treatment as the appellant/claimant is bed ridden being disabled 100%.
10. Therefore, in light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the present appeal may be allowed and reliefs be granted, as prayed.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent NO. 1 vehemently opposed the present cross objection and submitted that the same is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merits.
12. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have held the appellant guilty of contributory negligence in causing the accident in question.
13. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation to the appellant to the tune of Rs.33,71,048/- which is baseless and illegal as it is contrary to the evidence placed on record. It is further submitted that the compensation award is not maintainable as appellant failed to prove negligence on part of the driver of the dumper vehicle.
14. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in considering 100% functional disability in view of the disability certificate exhibiting 72% permanent disability as loss of earning capacity to compute future loss of earning which summed up to Rs.18,42,048/- without any supportive and cogent medical evidence on record.
15. Therefore, in light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed.
16. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the records.
17. It is the case of the appellant that the learned Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation amount as the injury caused due to the accident left the appellant in a permanent vegetative state because of which he cannot perform basic life functions.
18. In rival submissions, it is the case of the respondent no.1 that the benefit of 100% functional disability should not be allowed when the disability certificate particularly states that the disability is merely 72% on account of neurological disability.
19. Therefore, the limited challenge before this Court is whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought in the instant cross objection.
20. At this juncture, this Court deems it pertinent to peruse the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. The relevant extracts of the same are reproduced as under: “Issue No. 2 That, since the petitioner has proved that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1, he is entitled to the amount spent by him on his treatment and also compensation on other heads: Medical Expenses That, Sh. Narender Mann S/o Sh. Narain Mann, father of the injured, in his testimony, deposed that on 16.06.2012 (in the night of 15.06.2012 and 16.06.2012), his son Harsh Mann sustained multiple head injuries and was taken to Trauma Centre where first aid was given and was shifted to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, where the petitioner/injured remained admitted from 16.06.2012 to 29.07.2012. The petitioner was again admitted to Apollo Hospital from 21.02.2014 to 27.02.2014, then again to Max Super Specialty Hospital from 13.03.2014 to 22.03.2014. The petitioner has placed on record medical bills of Rs. 13,79,000/-. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 13,79,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Only) towards medical expenses. Loss of Income That, the petitioner/injured was a student at the time of the accident and was not earning anything from any source. Therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation under this head. Pain and Suffering That, as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Section 160 of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes the Claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly. That in the matter titled as "Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharashtra" reported at SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "xxxxx The Court and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any." xxxxx" That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as "Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni &Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:- "xxxxx It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury: the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment". That, the father of the injured/petitioner has testified that his son sustained multiple head injuries and was taken to Trauma Centre where first aid was given and was shifted to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, where the petitioner remained admitted from 16.06.2012 to 29.07.2012 as well as the treatment of the doctors of different hospitals and as per the MLC the nature of injuries are "Grievous". It is proved that the petitioner/injured had suffered multiple and grievous injuries and he must have suffered mental tension, hurt, pain, and agony, therefore, in these facts and circumstances, this Tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards pain and suffering to the petitioner/injured.
LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE That, in the present claim petition, there is sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioner/injured had suffered multiple serious injuries on his body and remained hospitalized for many days and was put on liquid diet after his discharge from the hospital. Because of the injuries sustained in the road accident, he would not have been able to enjoy general amenities of life at all, during the period he remained hospitalized and even afterwards, he would have been deprived of many general amenities during that period. He remained under treatment and it is very difficult to bear the pain at a young age. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, this Tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards loss of amenities of life. CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET That, the petitioner/injured must have taken special diet and spent money for conveyance charges, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, this Tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on account of conveyance charges and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on account of special diet. Just Compensation on account of disability That, the disability certificate, issued by the Medical Board of Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences, shows 72% permanent physical disability which is likely to be permanent in nature due to sequelae of head injury which is proved by PW-5 Dr. Vibha Sharma, Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology, IHBAS, Delhi. Because of the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner/injured in the road traffic accident and due to said disability, petitioner Harsh Mann is bedridden all the time and is not able to even sit, walk, or speak anything, and is unable to do his work for his whole life. The counsel for the petitioner/injured has argued that 72% disability may kindly be considered as 100% functional disability. This Tribunal is convinced and found force in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as the petitioner is bedridden since the day of the accident and there is no possibility of any improvement. Therefore, this tribunal is of the considered view that 100% functional disability is justifiable. The injured is at the young age of 19 years as mentioned in the 12th class certificate and he had suffered multiple and grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. Therefore, the disability is to be considered justifiably 100% functional permanent physical disability and the just compensation is to be awarded on account of 100% functional permanent disability of the injured. Therefore, a multiplier of 18 would be applicable. He has placed on record his 12th class certificate, therefore, he is entitled to compensation as a matriculate on the date of the accident i.e. 16.06.2012 and the wages of matriculates on the date of the accident was Rs. 8,528/- per month. The compensation under this head is assessed as 8,528 x 12 x 18 x 100 / 100 = 18,42,048/-. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 18,42,048/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Forty Two Thousand and Forty Eight Only) is awarded under this head. The total compensation is assessed as under:- Medical expenses Rs. 13, 79,000/- Loss of income Rs. Nil. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Loss of Amenities of Life Rs. 50,000/- Conveyance & Special diet etc. Rs. 25,000/- & Rs. 25,000/total 50,000/- Just Compensation on account of disability 18, 42,048/- Total 33, 71,048/- That, the vehicle in question was insured with the R-3 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company and there is no breach of any of the conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation amount. Therefore, the insurance company is, thus, liable to indemnify the insured u/s 149(1) of MV Act and hence, liable to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Court in favor of petitioner/injured.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF: In view of my findings on issue no. 1 and 2, this tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 33,71,048/- (Rupees Thirty- Three Lacs Seventy-One Thousand and Forty-Eight Only) including interim award, if any; along with interest @ 9% per annum in favor of petitioner/injured and against respondent no. 3 i.e. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, w.e.f. date of filing of the DAR/claim petition i.e. 05.10.2012 till the date of its realization (Reliance is placed upon New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Budhya Devi &Ors. Reported at 2010 ACJ 2047).”
21. With respect to the issue of determining quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal based its decision on the established fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the dumper.
22. Consequently, the appellant Sh. Harsh Mann, was held entitled to compensation for the expenses incurred and the suffering endured by him due to the accident. Sh. Narender Mann had testified that his son sustained multiple head injuries and was hospitalized multiple times between the year 2012 and 2014. The medical bills totaling Rs. 13,79,000/- was placed on record of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal awarded this amount in full.
23. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that the injured was a student at the time of the accident and had no source of income. Therefore, the learned Tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to any compensation under the head of loss on income. Considering the grievous nature of the injuries and the prolonged hospitalization, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering. This amount was determined based on the extent of physical and mental agony endured by the injured.
24. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that due to the severe injuries and prolonged hospitalization, the appellant was deprived of general amenities of life during and after his hospital stay. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- under this head to compensate for the loss of normal life activities. Acknowledging that the injured must have incurred expenses for special diet and conveyance during his treatment, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- each for conveyance and special diet, totalling Rs. 50,000/-.
25. The learned Tribunal observed that the injured has 72% permanent physical disability which was deemed to be 100% functional disability due to his inability to perform basic activities. The learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 and considered monthly wage of the injured as a matriculate to calculate the compensation. This resulted in an award of Rs. 18,42,048/under this head. The total compensation awarded to the petitioner was Rs. 33,71,048/-.
26. The learned Tribunal held that since the vehicle in question was insured with M/s Reliance General Insurance Company and there was no breach of insurance policy conditions, the insurance company was liable to indemnify the insured and pay the compensation amount of Rs. 33,71,048/to the claimant.
27. With respect to issue no. 3, based on the evidence presented and findings on issues no. 1 and 2, the learned Tribunal decided the same in favour of the injured appellant, thereby, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 33,71,048/- to the injured party, i.e., Sh. Harsh Mann, with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until its realization.
28. Before delving into the instant issue, it is pertinent to analyse the settled position of law with respect to the same.
29. In the case of Sidram v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 439, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the primary object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done in a manner that is fair, reasonable and equitable.
30. Further, it is pertinent to note the legal context in which the reduction of compensation is made in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The legislative intent behind the same is to provide relief to victims of accidents. The said Act is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the objective of providing relief to the victims, their families, in case of genuine claimants.
31. The aforesaid Act aims to protect the rights of victims and their families by ensuring that they receive fair and timely compensation. The underlying principle of the same is to address the genuine claims of those affected, thereby, alleviating their financial and emotional burden resulting from accidents. The goal is to balance the need of the victims with the broader interests of the community and insurance providers, ensuring that justice is served in a manner that is equitable and compassionate.
32. In light of the facts of the instant case, it is true that the appellant has entered a vegetative state and is unable to perform basic life functions such as walking, eating, etc. In such a circumstance, the appellant is entitled to the benefit that can be provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
33. This Court notes that the appellant‟s vegetative state indicates a profound level of impairment. This condition reflects not just a temporary inconvenience but a long-term, perhaps permanent, inability to perform basic functions such as walking, eating, and self-care. This severe disability results in substantial emotional and psychological distress for both the individual and their family.
34. Given the gravity of appellant‟s condition, enhancing the compensation amount is deemed to be appropriate in the interest of justice and bearing in mind the intent of the aforesaid legislation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that compensation should account for the substantial and ongoing medical care, loss of quality of life, and other impacts resulting from the accident. Thus, enhancing the compensation amount is crucial to ensure that the appellant receives fair support and is not disadvantaged.
35. This Court is also of the view that the appellant‟s condition will likely require continuous medical attention and specialized care for an indefinite period. This includes expenses for medical treatments, caregiving, and potential modifications to living arrangements to accommodate their needs. Reducing the compensation amount might not cover these extensive and ongoing costs, leaving the affected individual and their family in a precarious financial position.
36. Further, the learned Tribunal itself noted that the claimant/injured would require assistance of an attendant for all his movements. Consequently, bearing in mind the need for the aforesaid and what was observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413, it is found necessary to add the expenses for service of an attendant for the appellant/claimant. Since no material is produced to quantify the expenses for the attendant, making a conservative estimate, Rs. 5,000/- per month appears to be the bare minimum in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 620. It is therefore deemed appropriate to quantify the annual expenses at Rs. 60,000/- and applying the multiplier of 18, the additional compensation payable under the cost of nursing attendant is quantified at Rs. 10,80,000/-.
37. It is apposite to mention that the appellant has prayed for compensation under the future medical expenses which was not considered by the learned Tribunal. In paragraph no. 28 of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has observed that the injured is bed ridden since the day of the accident and there is no possibility of any improvement, therefore, 100% functional disability is justifiable considering that the injured was aged 19 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, as a person suffering from 100% functional disability, recurring medical treatment is inevitable and bearing in mind the additional expenses already incurred, this Court deems it appropriate to award future medical expenses to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
38. The appellant has also prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering. This Court is of the view that the appellant is bed ridden at a young age and was a matriculate, therefore, the award of Rs. 50,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal is on a lower side and unjustified. Thus, bearing in mind the observations made by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 13 SCC 142 and Anant v. Pratap, (2018) 9 SCC 450, the quantum of compensation under the head of „pain and suffering‟ is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
39. The appellant has also contended that the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of „loss of amenities of life‟ and „loss of marriage prospects‟. With respect to the same, this Court is of the opinion that since the appellant was of merely 19 years at the time of the accident and was a matriculate, there is no doubt that the accident which caused the appellant 100% functional disability has made him bed ridden requiring constant care, thereby, reducing the enjoyment of life. Further, on account of severe injuries suffered by the appellant, the prospects of appellant‟s marriage have considerably reduced, rather, they are extremely bleak. Therefore, in view of the observations made by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ibrahim v. Raju & Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 634, this Court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head of „loss of marriage prospects‟ and Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of „loss of amenities of life‟.
40. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation under the head of expenditure of conveyance and diet as Rs. 50,000/- each awarded for the same is meagre in light of the inflation and regular increase in living expenses. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under the head of expenditure of conveyance is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-, and compensation awarded under the head of expenditure of special diet is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
41. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal stands modified and the same shall now be read as follows: Pecuniary loss Expenditure on treatment Rs. 13,79,000/- Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 1,00,000/- Expenditure on special diet Rs. 1,00,000/- Cost of nursing attendant Rs. 10,80,000/- Future medical expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- Non-pecuniary loss Pain and sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 2,00,000/- Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity 18,42,048/- Total Rs. 52,01,048/-
42. In light of the foregoing discussions on law as well as facts, the impugned judgment/award dated 10th April, 2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Rohini Courts, New Delhi stands modified in view of the aforesaid extent.
43. The total compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 33,71,048/- to Rs. 52,01,048/-. The respondent-insurance company is directed to pay the aforesaid compensation to the appellant/claimant within four weeks from today along with interest @ 9 % per annum. The amount already paid/deposited shall stand excluded from the enhanced compensation.
44. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and stands disposed of along with the pending applications, if any.
45. The order to be uploaded on the website forthwith.