Savitha vs M/S Chodamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2611 OF 2020 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 9689 of 2018)

SAVITHA ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS M/s. CHODAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, a housewife, is in appeal against inadequacy

of compensation granted to her in a motor accident case.

3. The appellant while travelling in a bus belonging to respondent

no.3 on 25.12.2008 met with an accident when a lorry rashly and

negligently dashed against the bus. The appellant suffered nine

injuries out of which seven were grievous in nature. P.W.4, the

Orthopedic Surgeon who operated upon the appellant, deposed Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by BAJAJ that she had suffered 32 per cent total body disability and was SUSHMA KUMARI Date: 2020.06.16 15:26:38 IST Reason: 1 not capable of doing household work. The Tribunal awarded a

total compensation of Rs.5,82,500/­ with interest at the rate of

6%, redetermined by the High Court in appeal at Rs.6,50,350/­.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

assessment of income at Rs.4,250/­ per month was inadequate.

The appellant had claimed an income of Rs.6,000/­ p.m. from a

tailoring business which should have been the basis for

assessment of loss of income. The medical opinion of P.W.4 with

regard to extent of whole body disability has been arbitrarily

reduced to 20%.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the

High Court has adequately enhanced the compensation which

calls for no further interference.

6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the

parties. The appellant failed to lead any evidence in support of

her claimed profession as a tailor earning approximately

Rs.6,000/­ p.m. and therefore it has rightly been rejected.

2

7. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the appellant

as a housewife at Rs.3,000/­ p.m., which has been enhanced by

the High Court to Rs.4,250/­ and we find no reason to interfere

with the same. The appellant has been awarded Rs.3,00,000/­

towards medical expenses as she failed to lead acceptable

evidence in support of her claim for Rs.4,00,000/­. We find no

reason to interfere with the same also. However, we are of the

considered opinion that considering the nature of injuries and

age of the appellant the award of Rs.25,000/­ only towards loss

of amenities and future happiness is inadequate and is enhanced

to Rs.50,000/­.

8. P.W.4, the Orthopedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant

had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in

nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her

disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the

aid of crutches. Her whole body disability was medically

assessed at 32%. The Tribunal, by hairsplitting the expert

evidence assessed the whole body disability at 15%. The High

3 Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable

to determine the whole body disability at 20%.

9. The appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of

the whole body disability of 32% as opined by P.W.4. The

compensation under that head is therefore redrawn awarding

Rs.2,12,160/­ (Rs.4250 x 12 x 13 x 32%).

10. The appellant is therefore held entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.7,54,910/­ along with interest at the rate of

six per cent from the date of petition till the date of realization.

11. The appeal is allowed.

.……………………….J. (R.F. Nariman)

………………………..J. (Navin Sinha)

………………………..J. (B.R. Gavai)

New Delhi, June 16, 2020

4