http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4561 of 2006

PETITIONER: Tejinder Singh Gujral

RESPONDENT: Inderjit Singh & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/10/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16501 of 2005] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4562 OF 2006 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1134 of 2005]

S.B. SINHA, J :

       Leave granted.

       Appellant herein is a practicing lawyer.  While riding on a scooter, he  met with an accident as a tempo which was allegedly being driven rashly  and negligently by Respondent No. 1 dashed therewith.  He is said to have  suffered a permanent disability.   He filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1988 praying for grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.  An application for  amendment of the said claim petition was filed raising the amount of  compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- .

       The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by a judgment and award dated  15th March, 1986 awarded a sum of  Rs.1,83,000/-, details whereof are as  under:

"i) Damage on account of agony, shock pain  and suffering of the appellant Rs. 50,000.00 ii) Damages on account of hospitalization  including medicines Rs. 20,000.00 iii) Damages on account of loss of income Rs. 1,12,000.00 iv) Damages on account of the damage caused  to the scooter Rs. 1,000.00

Total Rs. 1,83,000.00"

       The Tribunal as regards the purported plea of the Insurer that its  liability is limited, opined  :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

"\005A perusal shows that liability of the insurance  company is limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-  Counsel for the claimant contended before me that  as the insurance policy has not been tendered the  same in evidence, so, should be held that the  liability of insurance company is unlimited.  It is  no doubt true that the insurance policy has not  been tendered the policy in evidence.  But as the  insurance policy is only on the file, I am of the  view that this court taken note of it.  So, it is held  that the liability of insurance company is only to  the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- and interest on the  same and rest of the amount will be paid by the  respondent No. 1.  The issue is decided  accordingly."

       An appeal thereagainst was filed by Appellant before the High Court.   A learned Single Judge of the High Court enhanced the amount of  compensation to Rs. 2,90,000/-.  A direction was also issued upon   Respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of  compensation from the date of filing thereof till the date of realization.  The  learned Single Judge also set aside the findings of the learned Tribunal to the  effect that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs.  1,50,000/-.   

       Still being not satisfied, an intra-court appeal was filed by Appellant  herein.  Before a Division Bench of the High Court, the question which was  raised on behalf of Appellant was as to whether he having suffered  permanent disability would be entitled to any further compensation as he  may have to engage a driver to drive his car in future.  A contention as  regards higher amount of compensation was also raised towards purported  loss of prospective income.  The Division Bench by reason of the impugned  judgment enhanced only the amount of compensation under the head of ’loss  of income’ from Rs. 1,12,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- relying on the decision of  this Court in Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [(2001) 8  SCC 197].

       Still not satisfied, Appellant is before us.

       Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of   Appellant, would inter alia submit that the High Court committed an error in  denying enhanced compensation to Appellant despite noticing the fact that  he has attained permanent disability and he would not be able to drive a  vehicle himself and, thus, will have to appoint a driver.  It was urged that the  High Court failed to consider the question of grant of enhanced  compensation without taking into consideration his prospective income.  It  was further submitted that although interest on an enhanced amount should  have been granted, the High Court erred in not doing so without assigning  any sufficient or cogent reason therefor.  

       Mr. S.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance  company would, on the other hand, submit that although the insurance  policy was not proved, the same having brought on records, the liability of  insurance company must be held to be limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-.  As  Appellant on the date of accident was riding on a two-wheeler and not a car,  the question of awarding compensation for not being able to drive a car does  not arise.  It was submitted that as Appellant did not suffer any permanent  disability and as the Tribunal as also the High Court had only granted  general benefits, this Court should not interfere with the impugned  judgments.  No claim of interest having been made, it was urged, Appellant  must be held to be not entitled thereto.

       It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured.  The fact  that an accident had taken place as also the fact that Appellant suffered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

injuries is also not disputed.  Appellant on 6.8.1984 was riding on a scooter.   His scooter dashed with a tempo bearing No. CHW 4257.  He in his  application initially claimed only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-  by way of  compensation.  He did not claim any interest on the said amount.

       He, as noticed hereinbefore, filed an application for amendment of the  claim petition only  at a much later stage.  The learned Tribunal noticed the  extent of injuries suffered by him and also took into consideration the  evidences of doctors who had examined and treated him and awarded  compensation under different heads.  In regard to his future loss of income,  the Tribunal noticed his income tax returns for the financial year  prior to his  meeting with the accident as also the year in question.  The annual loss to his  private practice was taken at Rs. 700/- per month.   

       The learned Tribunal, however, committed an error in opining that the  insurance policy was not required to be proved.  The learned Single Judge of  the High Court, in our opinion, rightly held that the insurance policy having  not brought on records, a presumption would arise that the liability of the  insurer was unlimited.  The learned Single Judge adopted a rather liberal  approach.  He took into consideration the entire evidence on records  including the extent of disability allegedly suffered by Appellant.  It was  opined:

"\005The appellant is lawyer by the profession.  This  profession needs unhampered concentration for the  full devotion to the cases he might handle.  When  bodily pain and suffering subsist and there is even  danger of such pain resulting in attack of the  engina it certainly amounts to a great incapacity in  performance of his professional duties by the  appellant.  The agony and suffering on this account  which last with his life is difficult to measure in  terms of money but I am decidedly of the view that  damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by  the learned Tribunal under this head are grossly  inadequate.  Keeping in view all the facts and  circumstances brought on the record, I shall assess  damages under this Head at Rs. 1,00,000/-."

       It was held that he was also entitled to the services of his wife who in  turn would require some  outside assistance and on that head awarded a sum  of Rs. 57,600/-.  He furthermore awarded interest at the rate of 12% per  annum.   

       The Division Bench, in our opinion, had also taken a somewhat liberal  view in favour of Appellant than he deserved.  The Division Bench of the  High Court opined that Appellant might have to engage a driver and for the  said purpose awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month from  the date of filing of claim petition till the award by the Tribunal.  Appellant  now wants the amount of compensation to be enhanced on that head.  We  decline to do so for more than one reason.

       Appellant has not proved that he had bought a car.  He even on the  date of accident was merely riding on a scooter.  He has not brought on  record any evidence to show that even at that point of time he could afford a  car.  As indicated hereinbefore, the learned Single Judge as also the Division  Bench of the High Court was more than generous in enhancing the amount  of compensation.   

So far as the question of interest is concerned, it is true that the same  need not be claimed specifically.  Interest is granted by way of compensation  but, as has been held in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General,  Geological Survey of India and Another [(2003) 3 SCC 148], the same must  be a reasonable one.  In Abati Bezbaruah (supra), this Court directed  payment of interest only at the rate of 9% per annum, whereas the rate of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

interest awarded in favour of the claimant was @ 12% per annum.

       Lakshmanan, J. in his separate judgment, whereupon Mr. Malik has  placed strong reliance, opined that the rate of interest must be just and  reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and  taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy  being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the  case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of  suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life, etc. into  consideration.  Grant of interest is discretionary.  We do not find that the  discretion exercised by the High Court was in any manner unreasonable.    

       Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel in Abati Bezbaruah  (supra) for the proposition of law that that future prospect of income should  also be taken into consideration.  We may notice that in that case multiplier  of 15 was applied.  The Tribunal had noticed that the income of the deceased  was assessed only at Rs.3,500/- per month and, thus, the loss of dependency  should have been enhanced to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month.  This Court  instead of granting Rs. 42,000/- per year increased the same to Rs. 45,000/-  per year and the loss of dependency was, thus, calculated at Rs. 30,000/-  instead of Rs. 28,000/-.   The claimant in that case was a salaried person.  

       Appellant herein before us is in legal profession.  He may have  suffered some injuries but the same would not mean that he would not be in  a position to rise in his profession only by reason thereof.  We, therefore,  decline to enhance any amount of compensation in this behalf.   

So far as the amount of interest is concerned, we may notice that in  Devi Dayal Kansal and Others v. Raj Roop and Another [(2000) 10 SCC  314] this Court merely opined that interest would have been directed to be  granted on the enhanced compensation but no law in absolute terms was laid  down therefor.   

       The learned Single Judge has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per  annum.  The rate of interest now granted is 9% per annum keeping in view  the drastic fall in the bank rate.  We, therefore, do not intend to interfere  with the said direction of the High Court.

       Reliance placed by Mr. Malik on Lata Wadhwa (supra) is not  apposite.  Therein multiplier method for determining compensation was  resorted to as death occurred and injuries suffered by many persons in a  devastating fire resulted from negligence on the part of the Company.  [See  Krishna Gupta & Ors. v. Madan Lal & Ors. 96 (2002) DLT 829]

       Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore, both the learned Single Judge as  also the Division Bench was more than generous in awarding compensation  to Appellant under different heads.   

       We, therefore, do not intend to interfere with the impugned  judgments.  The appeals are dismissed accordingly.  No costs.