REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4027 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.4649 of 2010)

Sri B.T. Krishnappa ..Appellant(s)

Versus  

The Divisional Manager, United ..Respondent(s) Insurance Company Ltd. and another

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1.Leave granted  

2.This Appeal impugns the order of the High Court of  

Karnataka in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 259 of  

2008  dated  20.07.2009,  whereby  the  High  Court  

enhanced the compensation granted by the tribunal  

1

to the appellant only to the extent of Rs.34,000/-  

without disclosing adequate reasons.  

3.This  Court  finds  that  the  High  Court  did  not  

properly consider the case for enhancement. Thus  

after condonation of delay, this Court passed an  

order dated 05.02.2010 as follows:

“….Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner and perused the records.

We are prima facie of the view that the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  deserves to be set aside and the matter  remitted to it for fresh disposal of the  Miscellaneous  First  Appeal  filed  by  the  petitioner  because  the  High  Court  has  failed to consider the issues relevant for  deciding  the  cases  involving  claim  for  compensation.

Issue Notice to the Respondents……..”

4.Pursuant thereto show cause notices were issued to  

the  respondents  on  17.2.2010  and  service  was  

complete.  

5.The material facts are that appellant was working  

as a mason and was aged 50 years at the time of  

accident.  On  the  fateful  day  of  08.01.2006,  at  

about 4.30 pm, the appellant was crossing the road  2

near  Deepa  Nursing  Home,  K.R.  Puram,  when  a  

motorcycle, with the registered number plate KA-05-

EW-1108 hit him. The motorcycle was being driven by  

the  second  respondent  (to  be  known  as  ‘R2’  

hereinafter)  at  the  time  of  the  accident.  As  a  

result  of  the  accident,  the  appellant  sustained  

bone fractures as well as head and other injuries  

all  over  the  body.  He  was  taken  to  the  Deepa  

Nursing  Home,  Bangalore  where  he  received  first  

aid. He was then shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon  

Hospital,  Bangalore  (to  be  known  as  ‘Hospital’  

hereinafter) the same day where he was admitted and  

received treatment as an inpatient till 21.01.2006.  

He  continued  with  the  follow  up  treatments  for  

about six months after his discharge.

6.The  first  Respondent  Insurance  Company,  (to  be  

known as ‘R1’ hereinafter) was also impleaded as a  

party as the motorcycle was insured with it.  

7.By the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal  

(to  be  known  as  ‘Tribunal’  hereinafter),  the  

3

appellant  was  awarded  a  compensation  of  

Rs.1,55,000/- with interest @ 7.5%.  R1 was made  

liable to pay the compensation to the appellant.  

8.On  appeal,  the  High  Court  however  enhanced  the  

compensation by only Rs.34,000/- awarding a total  

of Rs.1,89,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

9.On a reading of the High Court order, it is clear  

that  High  Court  did  no  consider  the  appellant’s  

case  properly.  It  accepted  the  Tribunal’s  

assessment  of  the  body  disability  at  20%  and  

observed that the Tribunal has paid compensation  

under the heads “loss of amenities and enjoyment of  

life and loss of earnings during laid up period” on  

the lower side. However, it awarded an additional  

compensation only for future medical expenditures  

and did not deal with the aspect of future loss of  

earnings at all, which we feel was not a correct  

approach.

4

10.This Court finds that “incapacity or disability to  

earn livelihood would have to be viewed not only in  

praesenti but in futuro on reasonable expectancies  

and taking into account deprival of earnings of a  

conceivable period.”  This was laid down by this  

Court  in  Ramesh  Chandra vs.  Randhir  Singh  and  others, (1990)  3  SCC  723.  In  page  726,  para  7,  those above quoted observations were made.  

11.The  Tribunal  examined  the  doctor  who  supervised  

the appellant’s injuries and administered treatment  

in the Hospital, Dr. S. Rajanna, as PW2.  

12.As per the evidence of PW2, it was proved that the  

appellant sustained compound fractures in the tibia  

and fibula bone of the right leg. He also suffered  

bruises and cuts on his face and some parts of the  

body. He had to be operated upon and the operation  

was done on 09.01.2006. Even after his discharge,  

he  was  advised  follow  up  treatments  and  

physiotherapy and also exercise for better movement  

of his leg.  

5

13.In  his  affidavit  dated  23.05.2007  before  the  

Tribunal,  the  PW2  states  that  he  examined  the  

appellant  for  assessment  of  the  percentage  of  

disability  on  17.04,2007.  He  recorded  that  the  

appellant’s right leg was shortened as a result of  

which  he  had  to  walk  with  a  limp.   Thus  the  

appellant was advised to use footwear with a raised  

sole and continue with the exercises. The Tribunal  

later noted that the shortening of the leg was by  

3.5 cms.  The High Court should have considered  

that appellant, being a mason, these injuries would  

cause considerable problem in moving his knee and  

ankle. PW2, in the disability certificate  clearly  

stated:

“Due to the above mentioned disabilities,  he  cannot  walk  like  a  normal  person,  cannot  sit  crossed  leg,  cannot  squat,  cannot lift any weight, cannot climb the  stairs without support.

…I am of the opinion that the…disability  is 48% of the (right) lower limb and 48%  disability to the whole body. In view of  this disability, the petitioner cannot do  mason work and cannot do any other manual  work also”

6

14.The Tribunal however, in accepting the disability  

of  the  appellant  at  48%,  refused  to  accept  the  

assessment of the doctor that the future loss of  

earning  will  also  be  at  48%.  It  opined  that  

construction  work  involves  many  people  and  the  

doctor is not right in concluding that due to the  

disability on the right leg, the appellant would  

not be able to do construction work. Therefore, the  

future  loss  of  earning  was  assessed  at  a  much  

lesser 20%. Since there was no specific evidence  

regarding  his  income,  the  multiplier  method  was  

used for assessing the compensation.

15.Although the Tribunal concluded by holding that the  

assessment  of  future  loss  of  earnings  should  be  

made  only  at  20%,  we  feel  that  the  High  Court,  

while making the observation that the Tribunal’s  

compensation under the heads “loss of amenities and  

enjoyment of life and loss of earnings during laid  

up period” was on the lower side, should have given  

reasons  and  made  its  own  assessment  under  these  

heads,  since  High  Court,  as  the  first  appellate  

7

authority, is an authority both on facts and law.  

The High Court’s orders starkly lack in any details  

on assessment of compensation under these heads.  

These areas need proper introspection and a more  

sensitive approach as the appellant being a mason  

and a workman represents the weaker section of the  

community.   The  appellant  had  suffered  an  

irreversible  damage  to  his  right  leg  which  will  

pose  difficulties  for  him  in  carrying  out  his  

avocation as a mason. This Court in M/s. Concord of  India Insurance     Co. Ltd.   vs.  Smt. Nirmala Devi &  others, (1979) 4 SCC 365, has observed that:

“…The  jurisprudence  of  compensation  for  motor  accidents  must  develop  in  the  direction  of  no-fault  liability  and  the  determination  of  the  quantum  must  be  liberal,  not  niggardly  since  the  law  values life and limb in a free country in  generous scales...” [at page 366, para 2 ]  

16. In the case of  Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs.  Mahadeva Shetty & another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, where  the  claimant  was  also  a  mason,  this  Court  held  

that:

“…….It  has  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  compensation for loss of limbs or life can  

8

hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily  injury is nothing but a deprivation which  entitles  the  claimant  to  damages.  The  quantum  of  damages  fixed  should  be  in  accordance with the injury. An injury may  bring about many consequences like loss of  earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure  and  many  such  consequential  losses.  A  person  becomes  entitled  to  damages  for  mental and physical loss, his or her life  may have been shortened or that he or she  cannot  enjoy  life,  which  has  been  curtailed  because  of  physical  handicap. The  normal  expectation  of  life  is impaired….” [at page 204, Para 15.]

17.Long expectation of life is connected with earning  

capacity.  If earning capacity is reduced, which is  

the  case  in  the  present  situation,  that  impacts  

life expectancy as well.  

18.Therefore, while fixing compensation in cases of  

injury affecting earning capacity the Court must  

remember:  

“….No amount of compensation can restore  the physical frame of the appellant. That  is  why  it  has  been  said  by  courts  that  whenever any amount is determined as the  compensation  payable  for  any  injury  suffered during an accident, the object is  to compensate such injury “so far as money  can compensate” because it is impossible  to  equate  the  money  with  the  human  sufferings or personal deprivations. Money  cannot  renew  a  broken  and  shattered  physical frame.” [See  R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest  Control  (India)  (P)  Ltd.  &  others,  (1995) 1 SCC 551, at page 556, para 10]

9

19.Further,  the  Court  in  the  same  case  also  held  

that:

“In its very nature whenever a tribunal or  a court is required to fix the amount of  compensation  in  cases  of  accident,  it  involves some guesswork, some hypothetical  consideration,  some  amount  of  sympathy  linked with the nature of the disability  caused.  But  all  the  aforesaid  elements  have  to  be  viewed  with  objective  standards. [at page 557, para 12]

20.Thus, we feel that the appeal needs to be remanded  

to  the  High  Court  so  that  it  can  consider  the  

matter afresh.  The High Court, we expect, will  

consider the case of enhancement of compensation to  

the appellant in its proper perspective and keeping  

in mind the factual aspects of the case and in the  

light  of  the  views  expressed  by  this  Court  in  

several judgments, discussed above.  

21.The  High  Court  is  requested  to  deal  with  the  

matter  with  utmost  expedition  since  it  concerns  

compensating  an  injured  workman.   The  appeal  is  

allowed.  No costs.  

1

.....................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

.....................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi April 30, 2010

1