Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nikita Raghuwanshi vs Amzed Shah on 28 February, 2024
1
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 28th Of February, 2024
Misc. Appeal No. 4278 Of 2022
Between:-
Nikita Raghuwanshi D/O Kiran Singh
Raghuwanshi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
- H.No. C-180, C-Sector Shahapura
Infront Of Bansal Hospital District
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
.....Appellant
(By Shri Gopal Jaiswal - Advocate)
AND
1. Amzed Shah S/o Rustam Shah, Aged
Adult, R/o H.No. 238 Bapu Nagar Kotra
Sultanabad Kamla Nagar District
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
2. Ramesh Kumar Prajapati S/o
Goverdhan Ram Prajapati R/o H.No.
14/23 Subri Nagar Nehru Nagar District
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
3. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through Sr. Divisional Manager
Divisional Office Sewani Tower Zone -Ii
Mp Nagar District Bhopal (Madhya
Pradesh)
.....Respondents
(By Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate For The Insurance Company)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 13.02.2024.
Pronounced on : 28.02.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
This appeal coming on for hearing on 13.02.2024 this day, the
court passed the following:
J U D G M E NT
This appeal from the order has been filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to "Act, 1988") by
appellant - Nikita Raghuvanshi being aggrieved by judgment and award
dated 14.02.2022 passed by VIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), Bhopal in Claim
Petition No.1690/2019 awarding a sum of Rs.2,29,526/- with interest of
6% per annum to the injured from the date of application till the date of
payment against the respondent nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they
were arrayed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short
"MACT").
3. The brief facts are that the claim petition was filed with the
averments that on 27.01.2019 at about 8:00 pm, when the injured was
eating Nodules or Chowmean near Baba Nagar Sanchi Point at that time
a Car bearing No.MP-04 TA-8672 came from Bansal Hospital driven by
its driver in rash and negligent manner and hit the injured/claimant, due
to which, she sustained serious injuries and immediately she was shifted
to the Bhopal Fracture Hospital, admitted for treatment. The matter was
reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of
rash and negligent driving of the said car bearing No.MP-04 TA-8672
and based on the complaint lodged by Ritesh Raghuvanshi, the
Chunabhatti Police registered a case in Crime No.31/2019 for the
offences Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. After investigation of the case, a
charge-sheet was submitted before the Court at Bhopal against
3
accused/driver (respondent no.1) for having committed the offence
punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and the Doctor
found that the injured was sustained serious fractures on left leg, left hip,
waist, head and all over the body and she was operated femur bone and
hip joint and four screws and plats were inserted during the treatment,
before the accident claimant was working as a salesman in Shreeram
Traders getting Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, she lost
her job and she became permanent disabled. She is not able to do work
and she faces much inconvenience due to injuries on her waist and hip
and the claimant loose her memory and became weak.
4. The claimant Nikita Raghuvanshi filed an application claiming
compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her
in a road traffic accident.
5. The first and second respondents have not contested the matter.
6. The respondent no.3, i.e. National Insurance Company filed a
written statement and contended that the allegations made in the
application were false. It is further averred that first respondent did not
have any valid or effective driving license at the time of the accident.
The vehicle which caused the accident was being driven by its driver in
violation of Insurance Policy, and therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the
petition.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the
following issues dated 30.01.2021:-
"(i) Whether on 27.01.2019 at about 8:00 pm, the
non-applicant no.1 drove the Car bearing
No.MP-04 TA 8672 in a rash and neglignely and
dashed the appellant herein and caused injuries?
4
(ii) Whether the appellant suffered serious injuries on
account of the said accident ?
(iii). Whether the appellant was permanently disabled
due to the said accident ?
(iv) Whether the appellant is entitled for
compensation. If yes, then from whom and how
much?
(v) Whether the vehicle was being driven by its driver
in violation of the terms of the insurance policy ?
(vi) Aid and expenditure?"
8. In order to establish her claim, at the time of trial before the
Tribunal, PW-1 (injured) and PW-2 (Doctor) were examined, and
exhibits Ex.P-1 to P-115(C) were marked on behalf of the claimant. No
evidence was led, and no document was marked on behalf of the
respondent no.3/Insurance Company.
9. The learned Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence on
record, passed an award for a sum of Rs.2,29,526/- as compensation, the
break up details of compensation awarding by the learned Tribunal are
tabulation under:-
Sr. No.Head of Compensation Amount of
compensation awarded
1. Medical Expenditure Rs.1,44,526/-
2. Transportation, Special Diet and Rs. 10,000/-
attandant charges etc.
3. Loss of earning due to grievious injuries Rs. 60,000/-
4. Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/-
5. Future inconvenience Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.2,29,526/-
10. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award passed by the
learned Tribunal, the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal for
seeking enhancement of compensation.
5
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned
Tribunal committed error in passing impugned award for meager
amount without looking into the material and evidence on record.
Further would submit that the learned Tribunal erred in not taking the
disability at 40% or 50% by awarding amount for loss of future
earnings, further would submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have
awarded suitable compensation for medical expenses incurred by the
claimant for treatment Ex.P/17 to P/82, further would submit that
learned Tribunal has not awarded the amount under conventional heads
by applying the principles laid down in the Apex Court's judgments.
Further would submit that the appellant/claimant sustained 40% to 50%
disability, the future loss of earnings not awarded by the Tribunal.
Further would submit that the appellant/claimant has taken treatment in
Bhopal Fracture Hospital and spent huge amount for treatment nearly
Rs.3,00,000/- which is supported by a bunch of bills in the name of the
claimant and medical expenses need to be enhanced. In fact the
appellant/claimant who was working as salesman is not supposed to be
that much of meticulous so as to maintain the bills for any future use, in
fact she spent more amount but the learned Tribunal did not award the
amount spent by her towards treatment under the bills. Therefore,
figures and multipliers were not applied by the learned Tribunal which
warrants interference by this Court for enhancement of compensation by
modifying the award.
12. The learned standing counsel for the third respondent/Insurance
Company has opposed this appeal and contended that the learned
Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity which needs no
interference by this Court, further submit that on proper appreciation of
6
evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a just and
fair compensation to the appellant. Further would submit that the
amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is justified which
called for no interference in the appeal, therefore, the appeal lacks of
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
13. In view of the above rival arguments, the points for determination
in this appeal are as under:-
(i) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as prayed for ? And ;
(ii)Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal
by following the principles of law or needs any
interference?
14. Point No.1 and 2 : - Considering the submissions of the learned
counsels, perused and assessed the entire evidence on record including
the exhibited documents. A perusal of the impugned award would show
that the learned Tribunal has framed issue no.1, as to whether, the
accident in question occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle bearing registration No.MP-04-TA-8672, driven
by its driver, to which, the learned Tribunal after considering the oral
evidence coupled with the documents, gave a finding on issue no.1
mentioned in para-13 of the judgment that the non-applicant no.1
(driver) drove the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.MP-04-TA-8672
in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, as a result, the
claimant got serious injuries and a criminal case was filed against the
driver of the offending vehicle as per Ex.P/1 (charge-sheet). Therefore,
this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the
findings of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the
7
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.MP-
04- TA-8672, by its driver (first respondnet), due to which, the claimant
sustained severe injuries.
15. The learned Tribunal has not assessed the monthly income of the
injured by following the Apex Court judgment. In the instant case, the
appellant/injured took a plea before the learned Tribunal that she was
working as Salesman in Shreeram Traders and used to earn Rs.15,000/-
per month and received another appointment letter dated 10.02.2019
appointing her as Sales Executive Officer (SEO) offering salary of
Rs.20,000/- per month from Expert 18 Web Solution, she could not join
due to the accident, due to which, the claimant become completely
unemployed. In the instant case, except Ex.P/109 and her pleadings, she
was not examine any of them to prove that she was paid Rs.15,000/- per
month by Shreeram Traders. In absence of any material evidence, this
Court is of the opinion that the appellant injured is treated as sales
worker and her monthly income as on the date of the accident has to be
taken into consideration by following the judgment below :-
16. The law in respect of notional income is well settled by the
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
The law in respect of notional income is well
settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed
Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735]. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa
(supra) has fixed the notional income of a coolie
worker in the year 2004 MACA.No.952 OF 2008 @
Rs.4,500/- per month. In Syed Sadiq (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income
8
of a vegetable vendor in the year 2006 @
Rs.6,500/- per month. This Court in Soman vs.
Jinesh James and others [ILR 2020 (3) Kerala
1003] has fixed the notional income of a coolie
worker in the year 2010 at Rs.7,500/- per month.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized the principle that
there would be incremental enhancement in the case of even self-
employed individuals in the unorganized sector (National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680) and with respect to an
unspecified job of a worker considering the increase in cost of living and
economic advancements over the years, it can be safely assumed that
even a worker would be eligible for incremental addition of at least
Rs.500/- in every subsequent year.
18. In the light of the above judgments cited (supra), the notional
income of the worker has been fixed in 2010 at Rs.7,500/- per month.
Following the parameters laid down in the above judgments (supra), this
Court is of the considered opinion that by the date of accident, the
notional income of the injured can be safely assumed that even a worker
would be eligible for the incremental addition of at least Rs.500/- in
every subsequent year. In such circumstances, the notional income of
the worker in the year 2010 Rs.7,500/- and it can be safely assumed that
even a worker would be eligible for incremental additional of at least
Rs.500/- in every subsequent year i.e. 2011 to 2019 Rs.4,500/-,
therefore, the notional income of the injured can safely be fixed
(Rs.7,500/- +Rs.4,500/-) at Rs.12,000/- per month as in the year of
accident 2019. There was no reason for the learned Tribunal for not
considering the monthly income while determining for grant of
compensation for loss of earnings in terms of the Apex Court Judgment.
9
19. It is a well settled principle that while determining the
compensation payable to appellant/claimant in the claim filed under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court referred to the judgment of the
Court of Appeal in Ward Vs. James1 Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th
Edition, Volume 12 (Page 446) wherein, it was held as follows:
"When compensation is to be awarded for pain and
suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special
circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account
including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered,
the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of
compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine
but the award must reflect that different circumstances have
been taken into consideration".
20. Further, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.2 wherein, at
Para No.40, it was held as follows:
"40. It is well settled principle that in granting
compensation for personal injury, injured has to be
compensated (1) for pain and suffering (2) for loss of
amenities, (3) shortened expectation of life, if any,
(4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in
some cases for both, and (5) medical treatment and
other special damages............".
21. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon and another3
wherein, at Para Nos.11, 12 and 13 it was held as follows:
11. In Philipps v. London & South Western Railway Co.
[Philipps v.London & South Western Railway Co., (1879) LR
5 QBD 78 (CA)] , it was held that by making a payment of
compensation for the damages, the court cannot put back
again the claimant into his original position. On the date of
determination of the compensation, he is being compensated
1. (1965) 1 ALL ER 563
2. (2013) 8 SCC 389
3. (2022) 8 SCC 489
10
but he cannot sue again, therefore, the compensation must be
full and final while determining the same.
12. In Mediana, In re [Mediana, In re, 1900 AC 113
(HL)] , it is said that the determination for an amount of
compensation to the damages is an extreme task. What may
be adequate amount for a wrongful act and can it be
compensated by money, particularly towards pain and
suffering. By an arithmetical calculation, it cannot be decided
what may be the exact amount of money which would
represent the pain and suffering to a person, but as per
recognised principles, damages must be paid.
13. In H.West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard [H. West & Son
Ltd. v. Shephard, 1964 AC 326 : (1963) 2 WLR 1359 (HL)] ,
it was held that payment of compensation in terms of money
may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured
to replace something else of the like nature which has been
destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame
that has been battered and shattered, however the courts
must consider to award sums, which may be reasonable.
Simultaneously, uniformity in the general method of
approach is also required. Thereby, possible comparable
injuries can be compensated by comparable awards.........."
22. The learned Tribunal committed a grave error for not awarding
loss of past and future earnings by following the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand4, wherein para 16, 17 and 18
are as follows:
16. In Raj Kumarv.Ajay Kumar[Raj Kumarv.Ajay Kumar,
(2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1
SCC (Cri) 1161] , this Court laid down the heads under
which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries
: (SCC p. 348, para 6)
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
4. 2020(4) SCC 413
11
(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.
(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."
17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.[K.
Suresh v.New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 2
4 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638] ,
this Court held as follows : (SCC p. 276, para 2)
"2. ... There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of
the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality
lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained
which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation.
Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for brevity "the Act") stipulates that there should be
grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a
challenge for a court of law to determine "just
compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall,
and simultaneously, should not be a pittance."
18. Applying the aforesaid principles, we now proceed to
assess the compensation.
12
23. If the above judgments are read together, the issue of adequacy
and the grant of just and reasonable amount of compensation requires
consideration is what should be the basis for determination and what
may be the reason for awarding such compensation. Applying the
uniform methodology for determination of compensation, comparable to
the injuries, thereby a person can lead her life though her physical frame
cannot be reversed. In the present case of nature, the learned Tribunal
has not awarded compensation under loss of past and future liability in
accordance with the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgments, which is not just
and reasonable.
24. In the instant case, the injured sustained severe injuries and she
was operated and she was examined by Expert Body, assessed her
disability 40% as per the Ex.P/12(c) dated 12.09.2019. The learned
Tribunal ought to have accepted the said assessment certified by the
Expert Body but the learned Tribunal ignored the loss of disability while
assessing the compensation.
25. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of
India v. Talwinder Singh5 has laid down the law that the Courts should
not ordinarily interfere with the opinion of the experts.
26. In the instant case, the Ex.P/12(c) issued by the Medical Expert
Body that the injured sustained disability of 40% dated 12.09.2019 and
again she was examined by Medical Board on 21.10.2021 assessed
disability at 50%, the disability certificate marked as Ex.P/13. PW-2,
Doctor one among the expert body under Ex.P/13, however, Ex.P/13
issued by expert body after two years from the date of issuance of
Ex.P/12(c) dated 12.09.2019, therefore, this Court has taken the view
5. (2012) 5 SCC 480
13
that first disability certificate (Ex.P/12(c)) issued by expert body taken
into consideration that the appellant suffers from disability of 40%
instead of 50%.
27. In the present case, the injured aged about 28 years at the time of
accident and she was unmarried, as per the Doctors opinion she
sustained multiple fractures and four screws and plates were inserted
and left hip fractured and also fracture in neck femer, she was not able to
sit and she was suffering pain in left hip, assessed the disability 40%,
thus the calculation of compensation towards loss of future earnings as
per the judgment of Rajkumar (supra) and loss of earnings determined
by this Court Rs.12,000/-x12 (Rs.1,44,000/-). Thus, the calculation of
compensation towards loss of future earnings by applying appropriate
multiplier as per the principles laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra).
a) Annual income before the accident
(Rs.12000X12= 1,44,000) .... Rs.1,44,000/-
b) Loss of future earnings per annum
(40% of the prior annual income) .... Rs.57,600/-
c) Multiplier applicable with reference
to age (appellant's age was 28 years
at the time of the accident as per
Sarla Verma's case) .... 17
d) Loss of future earnings (57,600x17) ....Rs.9,79,200/-
28. In the present case, the learned Tribunal grossly erred in not
awarding a loss of future earnings. Therefore, a reading of the Tribunal
award makes it clear that the Tribunal approach does not accord at all
with the current judicial opinion, therefore, the appellant/claimant is
entitled to an amount of Rs.9,79,200/- under the head of "loss of future
earnings" which would be substantive.
14
29. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,44,526/- towards
medical expenses. The Tribunal has committed an error while awarding
compensation under the head of medical expenses. The claimant met
with an accident on 27.01.2019, immediately she was shifted to Bhopal
Fracture Hospital, she spent huge medical expenditure for her treatment
and a bunch of medical bills from Ex.P/17 to P/82, Rs.1,86,546/- which
is not disputed by either side. The appellant claimant, who is worker, is
not supposed to be that much of meticulous so as to maintain the bills
for any future use. The claimant remained in the hospital and has done
many surgeries and four screws and plates were inserted in left hip and
she must have incurred more expenditure. The medical bills consist of
Ex.P/17 to P/82 showing the expenditure incurred by the claimants
towards the treatment which is not in dispute by either of the sides, she
may spend more expenditure than the bills. In the present case, the
learned Tribunal even did not award actual amount incurred by her and
awarded less than the amount incurred. Hence the appellant is entitled to
just compensation for Rs.3,00,000/- for medical expenditure, therefore,
the compensation under the head of medical expenditure is enhanced
from Rs.1,44,526/- to Rs.3,00,000/-.
30. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for loss of
amenities of life, as a person who is suffering 40% permanent disability
cannot lead a normal life. PW-2 stated that she was fractured in left
femur bone and neck, commutated four screws fixation in left hip and
she is not able to walk and sit squarely, she is suffering from the above
injuries, therefore, she cannot enjoy pleasures of life and she will miss
out fun of her enjoyment and pleasure of marital life and therefore, this
Court feels in a peculiar facts and circumstances of the case even after
15
taking a conservative view of the matter and the amount payable for loss
of amenities of life awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- may be
sufficient. The compensation only the means to grant some support for
the loss, she suffered with which is expected to live for the rest of her
life by making the payment of compensation for damages. The Court
cannot be put back again the claimant into her original position on the
date of determination of compensation. She being compensated but
cannot be sued again. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
Rs.1,50,000/- has to be awarded towards the loss of amenities of life.
31. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of
earnings for the period of treatment and the period of rest taken by the
injured at least she may be taken rest for six months from the date of
accident. The accident occurred on 27.01.2019. She underwent
treatment as impatient in Bhopal Fracture Hospital from 27.01.2019 to
01.02.2019 and normally the patient was advised for bed rest because
the nature of injuries sustained by her altogether severe in nature and she
could not unable to join the work, as she has lost her earning, by taking
into the consideration of the evidence, she might have loss of earning for
six months, as stated above, would come to Rs.12,000/- x 6= 72000/-.
As such the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.72,000/- under the
head of "loss of earnings".
32. The learned Tribunal awarded meager amount of Rs.10,000/-
towards attendant charge, transport and special diet. The claimant met
with an accident on 27.01.2019 when she was examined by Doctor on
21.10.2021 by that time she was suffering with severe pain, she was not
able to walk or sit comfirtably and having several fractures, therefore,
she cannot move alone unless assisted by attendant, hence, enhances the
16
compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of
special diet, transport and attendant charges.
33. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal awarded meager amount
of compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, with regard
to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the
appellant/claimant in the road traffic accident sustained number of
fractures and four screws and plates were inserted in the left hip and also
suffered fractures in neck and left femur bone. It is contended that the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was meager, it is not
disputed that the appellant remained in the hospital for treatment and it
is not possible for the Court to make precise assessment of the pain and
trauma suffered by the person whose hip bone was fractured and
suffered disability of 40% due to the accident. The injured will have to
struggle and face different challenges and she was handicapped.
Therefore, in all such cases, the learned Tribunal/Courts should make a
broad estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of just and
reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. Admittedly at the time
of the accident, the appellant was a young lady of 28 years. For the rest
of her life, the appellant will suffer the trauma of not being able to do
her normal work, therefore, it is submitted that to meet the ends of
justice, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
towards the pain and suffering and trauma causes her, therefore, the
compensation under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced from
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-.
34. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head
of future medical expenses in view of the injuries sustained by her to
remove the implants and screws from her hip bone whcih needs further
17
treatment. She may be required special mattress which will have to be
changed frequently. In future she may face many other medical issues
because of injuries suffered in the accident. Keeping in view of her
young age and assuming she would live another 40 to 50 years, it would
not be unjust to award her for Rs.1,50,000/- for future medical expenses.
35. In Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr. 6 the
Hon'ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of 'just
compensation' observed as under:
"Just compensation is adequate compensation which is
fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the
case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the
wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well
settled principles relating to award of compensation. It
is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of
profit."
36. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record,
and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited
decisions, I am of the definite opinion that the claimants are entitled to
enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and
given in the table below for easy reference, and the appellant shall be
entitled to the compensation figured out in the following table under
different heads:-
S. Head of Compensation Amount Enhanced Amount
No awarded by
the Tribunal
1 Loss of future earnings Rs.60,000/- Rs.9,79,200/-
(Rs.12000 x 12 =
Rs.1,44,000 x 40%
x17 = Rs.9,79,200/-)
2 Medical expenses Rs.1,44,526/- Rs.3,00,000/-
3 Loss of amenities of life ------- Rs.1,50,000/-
6. (2009) 6 SCC 121
18
4 Attendant charges, diet and Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
transportation
5. Pain, suffering & trauma as a Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
consequence of the injuries as
disability is 40% in view of
judgment of Mallikarjun vs.
National Insurance Company
Ltd. & Anr.7
6 Future medical expenditure & ------- Rs.1,50,000/-
treatment
7. Loss of earning ----- Rs.72,000/-
8. Future inconvenience Rs.5,000/- -----
Total Rs.2,29,526/- Rs.19,01,200/-
37. A decision in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunuchand Mahto8,
Para 17 as follows:-
"17. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per
the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court
in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2
SCC 274, it was observed that under the MV Act, there
is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award
compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The
Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation
which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the
evidence produced on record. Therefore, less
valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not
be impediment to award just compensation exceeding
the claimed amount."
38. In the light of the above decision, there is no restriction that
compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the
claimant in this appeal for enhancement of Rs.4,00,000/-. In an
7. 2014(14) SCC 396
8.(2023) 1 SCC 204
19
appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record, if
Tribunal /Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more
compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. There is
no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the
claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal/Court to award "just
compensation", even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The
Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of
compensation which should appear to be just and proper. In the present
case, the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against the
background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and
reasonable, and the claimant is entitled to more compensation though
she might not have claimed the same at the time of filing this appeal.
39. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference and
thereby enhances the compensation from Rs.2,29,526/- to
Rs.19,01,200/-.
40. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with costs and the
compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.2,29,526/- to Rs.19,01,200/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of realization, against respondents No.1 to 3 jointly
and severally.
(ii) Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment,
failing which execution can be taken out against insurance company.
(iii) The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the requisite Court-
fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the
20
amount awarded (As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramla
Vs. National Insurance Company Limited9).
(iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the
entire amount with accrued interest and costs, by filing a proper
application before the learned Tribunal.
(v) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified
to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above.
(vi) The record be sent back to the Tribunal within three weeks
from this day.
(vii) As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for
consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
rk..
9. 2019 ACJ 559 (SC)
21
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 28th Of February, 2024
Misc. Appeal No. 4278 Of 2022
Between:-
Nikita Raghuwanshi D/O Kiran Singh
Raghuwanshi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
- H.No. C-180, C-Sector Shahapura
Infront Of Bansal Hospital District
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
.....Appellant
(By Shri Gopal Jaiswal - Advocate)
AND
1. Amzed Shah S/o Rustam Shah, Aged
Adult, R/o H.No. 238 Bapu Nagar Kotra
Sultanabad Kamla Nagar District
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
2. Ramesh Kumar Prajapati S/o
Goverdhan Ram Prajapati R/o H.No.
14/23 Subri Nagar Nehru Nagar District
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
3. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through Sr. Divisional Manager
Divisional Office Sewani Tower Zone -Ii
Mp Nagar District Bhopal (Madhya
Pradesh)
.....Respondents
(By Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate For The Insurance Company)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 13.02.2024
Pronounced on : 28.02.2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the
Judgment ? Yes/No
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
rk.
