Satheesh E. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

(Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.)

 

Satheesh E. ______________________________________ Appellant;

 

v.

 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. _______________________ Respondent.

 

Civil Appeal Nos. 8059-8060 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 775-776 of 2022), decided on November 2, 2022

 

The Order of the court was delivered by

Order

 

1. Leave granted.

 

2. The grievance of the appellant – claimant is against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala whereby the compensation amount of Rs. 14,91,650/-, awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, has been reduced to Rs. 11,52,950-/though without disturbing the rate of interest.

 

3. The appellant aged 48 years at the relevant time met with the motor accident on 20.10.2012. He was riding his motor cycle and the delinquent vehicle, namely, a bus hit him from the rear side due to which he fell down and was run over by the front tyre of the bus. The appellant was rushed to the hospital due to severe injuries suffered to his genitals, which allegedly resulted in impotency and erectile dysfunction. The appellant claimed that his monthly income was Rs. 15,000/- at the time of accident. The Tribunal accepted the monthly income of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-, and having held that the appellant had suffered loss of earnings for a period of two years, the Tribunal granted him compensation towards loss of income for a period of 24 months. The overall compensation granted by the Tribunal was to the tune of Rs. 14,91,650/-. Both the parties felt aggrieved and filed cross appeals before the High Court. While accepting the appeal of the respondent – Insurance Company in part, the High Court viewed that though the appellant continued to take treatment upto the year 2015 (accident took place on 28.10.2012) but the documents produced by him were only outdoor tickets and, therefore, it would be sufficient to grant him compensation for the loss of earnings for a period of 12 months instead of 24 months as awarded by the Tribunal. The High Court further held that the appellant in his cross-examination had admitted that his loss of monthly profit was Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the income of the appellant was assessed at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month instead of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Consequently, the High Court reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 11,52,950/-.

 

4. We have heard learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company and gone through the material placed on record including the depositions of the appellant and the medical experts, with a view to appreciate the appellant’s claim.

 

5. As regard to the monthly income of the appellant, it appears to us that the High Court has misconstrued his version in the cross-examination where he has referred to the loss of “profit” of Rs. 10,000/- per month. If this statement is to be accepted, in that case, the monthly income of the appellant was bound to be more than Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal, thus, appears to be right in making a fair and just valuation of monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 15,000/-. We see no justification for the High Court to reduce the same to Rs. 10,000/-. Having held that, the necessary consequence will be that the appellant is entitled to restoration of the compensation as was awarded by the Tribunal, namely, Rs. 14,91,650/-. The High Court was, however, justified in enhancing the compensation amount under the head of ‘pain and suffering’ from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-, and under the head of ‘loss of amenities’ from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,25,000/-. Similarly, the High Court rightly granted bystander expenses of Rs. 13,500/-. The appellant, thus, would be entitled to the above stated enhanced compensation in addition to the amount of Rs. 14,91,650/- granted by the Tribunal.

 

6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant then contended that the Tribunal and the High Court both have not granted any compensation towards future prospects though in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, as subsequently explained by this Court in Lalan D. alias Lal v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2020) 9 SCC 805. Applying the ratio of these decisions in an injury case, the appellant is also entitled to additional compensation towards future prospects.

 

7. We find force in the contention of the learned Senior counsel as in view of para 59.4 of the Constitution Bench judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation towards future prospects at the rate of 25% of the monthly income in view of the fact that he was 48 years’ old at the time of accident. We order accordingly. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode is, thus, directed to re-calculate the amount of compensation, as is admissible to the appellant in the above terms, within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On doing so, the respondent – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation within one month thereafter before the Tribunal. The said amount shall then be released to the appellant without any delay.

 

8. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.

 

9. As a sequel thereto, pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

 

———