Benson George vs Reliance General Insurance Co. … on 25 February, 2022
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Benson George vs Reliance General Insurance Co. … on 25 February, 2022
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1540 OF 2022
Sri. Benson George .. Appellant(s)
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.& Anr. ..Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in M.F.A. No.3183 of 2018
(MV), the original claimant has preferred the present appeal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.02.25
16:25:53 IST
Reason:
with the prayer to enhance the amount of compensation.
1
2. In a vehicular accident which occurred on 01.01.2013
the claimant sustained grievous brain injuries. He underwent
brain surgery. Though he was discharged from the Hospital,
he remained in coma even till the claim petition was filed. At
the relevant time the claimant was working as a Process
Supervisor in Deutsche Bank and earning Rs.4,59,425/ per
annum. That at the time of accident he was aged 29 years.
That the claimant through his next friend i.e. his mother filed
a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
That the Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.94,37,300/ on the
different heads as under:
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.1,30,00000
2. Loss of income during laid up Rs.1,36,00000
period
3. Medical expenses Rs.9,91,86900
4. Loss of future income due to Rs.69,48,63100
permanent disability
5. Loss of future amenities and Rs.1,00,00000
happiness
6. Attendant charges Rs.9,20,80000
7. Extra nutritious food and Rs.1,60,00000
conveyance expenses
2
8. Future medical expenses Rs.50,00000
Total Rs.94,37,30000
The learned Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of petition till realization.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award passed by the learned Tribunal awarding a total sum of
Rs.94,37,300/ towards the compensation with 9% interest
both, the Insurance Company as well as the original claimant
preferred appeals before the High Court. By the impugned
common judgment and order, the High Court has party
allowed the appeal preferred by the claimant and has
enhanced the amount of compensation from 94,37,300/ to
Rs.1,24,94,333/ under different heads as under:
1 Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/
2 Medical expenses Rs. 9,91,869/
3 Loss of future income due to Rs. 88,02,464/
permanent disability
4 Loss of future amenities and Rs. 1,00,000/
happiness
5 Attendant charges Rs. 20,40,000/
3
6 Extra nutritious food and Rs. 1,60,000/
conveyance expenses
7 Future medical expenses Rs. 2,00,000/
Total Rs.1,24, 94,333/
The High Court has however, reduced the interest from
9% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal to the
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court in not awarding
full claim as prayed for, the original claimant has preferred the
present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant has
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of
the case the High Court has committed a grave error in
awarding Rs.2,00,000/ only under the head pain and
suffering and Rs.1,00,000/ only under the head of loss of
future amenities and happiness.
4
3.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the claimant that in the accident the claimant
sustained grievous brain injuries. He was hospitalized from
01.01.2013 to 15.03.2013 in St. John’s Hospital and from
16.03.2013 to 03.05.2013 in Brain & Spine Centre. He has
undergone three major brain operations. It is submitted that
thereafter all throughout he is in coma and is bedridden. It is
submitted therefore that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the High Court has erred in awarding Rs.2,00,000/ only
under the head pain and suffering. Therefore, it is prayed to
enhance the amount of compensation under the head pain
and suffering suitably, considering the period of
hospitalization, the grievous brain injuries sustained by the
claimant and that he underwent multiple operations.
3.2 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the claimant that in the vehicular accident the claimant has
suffered 100% disability and is completely bedridden. It is
submitted that with this disability he will have to live a
5
miserable life till his death. He will not be in a position to
enjoy life and therefore the High Court has committed a grave
error in awarding Rs.1,00,000/ only towards loss of amenities
and happiness. It is submitted that the High Court has
committed a grave error in reducing the amount of interest
from 9% per annum to 6% per annum.
Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the
present appeal and to enhance the amount of compensation
accordingly.
4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Ms. Prerna
Mehta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance
Company.
4.1 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Raj
Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, it is
submitted that as held by this Court, when compensation is
awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as
100% the need to award compensation separately under the
6
head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may
disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount
may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or
loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a
duplication in the award of compensation.
4.2 It is submitted that therefore in the facts and
circumstances of the case no error has been committed by the
High Court in awarding Rs.1,00,000/ towards loss of
amenities and happiness.
4.3 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Insurance Company that decision of this Court in
the case of Raj Kumar (supra) has been subsequently
considered and followed by this Court in the case of Lalan D.
alias Lal and Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
(2020) 9 SCC 805.
7
4.4 It is also contended by learned counsel for the Insurance
Company that in the facts and circumstances of the case the
High Court has not committed any error in reducing the
interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum.
5. We have learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
6. It is not in dispute and it has come on record that in a
vehicular accident the claimant sustained grievous brain
injuries. That he was hospitalized for a number of months.
That he undergone MRI, CT scans and Xrays. That he
sustained right temporal SDH, multiple hemorrhagic
contusions on temporal lobe, left parietooccipital lobe, left
parietal lobe and bilateral frontal lobe, hemorrhagic
contusions left thalamic region s/o grade II diffuse axonal
injury, moderate SAH in right sylvian cistern, moderate diffuse
cerebral edema, multiple comminuted and variably depressed
fracture in left squamous temporal and left parietal bone,
8
bilateral occipital bone fracture, right suboccipital SDH.
Finally diagnosed that traumatic brain injury sequelaes/p
frontotemporoparietal hemicraniectomy and right lower limb
deep vein thrombosis.
That the claimant underwent multiple surgeries. Left
fronto temporoparietal decompressive hemicraniectomy with
lax duroplasty done on 02.01.2013. He underwent
Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrotomy under GA. Since the
petitioner sustained very severe injuries to the Brain, he was
shifted to the Brain & Spine Centre, Chemmanakary, Kerala,
where he was admitted from 16.03.2013 to 03.05.2013. He
underwent right side VP shunting (Chabra medium pressure
regular) on 25.03.2013 under GA. That the claimant is still in
coma and totally bedridden.
7. Considering the prolonged hospitalization and medical
treatment and that the claimant underwent multiple surgeries,
we are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in
awarding Rs.2,00,000/ only under the head pain and
9
suffering. The pain, suffering and trauma suffered by the
claimant cannot be compensated in terms of the money.
However, still it will be a solace to award suitable
compensation under different heads including the pain, shock
and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness of life.
7.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case due to the
prolonged hospitalization and the multiple brain
injuries/injuries sustained by the claimant and that he is still
in coma and is bedridden, we are of the opinion that if the
amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and
suffering is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs),
it can be said to be a reasonable amount under the head pain,
shock and suffering.
7.2 Similarly, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ awarded by the
High Court under the head loss of amenities and happiness
can also be said to be on lower side. As observed hereinabove
no amount can compensate the loss of amenities and
10
happiness more particularly a person who is in coma since
number of years and is bedridden for the entire life.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
opinion that if the amount of compensation under the head
loss of amenities and happiness is enhanced to
Rs.10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from that of Rs.1,00,000/
as awarded by the High Court, it can be said to be a
reasonable amount under the head loss of amenities and
happiness.
8. Now with regard to reliance placed upon the decisions of
this Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and Lalan D.
alias Lal (supra), relied upon by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Insurance Company is concerned, we are of the
opinion that the amount of compensation to be awarded under
the heads, pain and suffering and loss of amenities and
happiness, there cannot be straight jacket formula. It
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it
varies from person to person who has suffered due to the
11
accident. So far as awarding compensation on the head of
pain, shock and suffering is concerned, multiple factors are
required to be considered namely, prolonged hospitalization;
the grievous injuries sustained; the operations underwent and
the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering.
8.1 Similarly, loss of amenities and happiness suffered by the
claimant and his family members also depend upon various
factors, including the position of the claimant postaccident
and whether, he is in a position to enjoy life and/or happiness
which he was enjoying prior to the accident. To what extent
the claimant has lost the amenities in life and the happiness
will depend on the facts of each case.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case when the claimant is in coma even after a period of eight
long years and that he will have to be permanently bedridden
during his entire life, as observed above the amount of
compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities and
happiness of Rs.1,00,000/ only is unreasonable and meagre.
12
8.2 Now so far as the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court reducing the amount of interest from 9% to
6% per annum is concerned, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the same is not required to be
interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is modified to the extent
and it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to a
total sum of Rs.1,41,94,333/ with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till
realization. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be
deposited by the respondent – Insurance Company before the
learned Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today,
failing which, it shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum. On such deposit, the learned Tribunal is hereby
13
directed to ensure that the amount of compensation is
invested in long term interest bearing deposits in different
Nationalized Banks or Post Office so that the amount of
compensation can be used for the claimant and the same is
not flittered away.
Present appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the
aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ….…………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 25, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
14