Shivdhar Kumar Vashiya vs Ranjeet Singh

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 433 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 17026/2021)

Shivdhar Kumar Vashiya …Appellant

Versus

Ranjeet Singh and others …Respondents

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted.

1a. Office Report dated 20.01.2022 indicates that ‘No one has entered

appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4 – Insurance Companies,

though served through registered A.D. post.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 24.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at

Bilaspur in MAC No. 623/2014, by which the High Court has partly Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi allowed the said appeal preferred by the claimant and enhanced the Date: 2022.01.24 16:39:52 IST Reason: 1 compensation to Rs.27,36,541/- only, the original claimant has preferred

the present appeal.

3. That in a vehicular accident between the motor cycle driven by the

claimant and the trailer bearing registration No. CG/12/D/8188, the

claimant suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to CIMS Hospital,

Bilaspur and then to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. He remained as indoor

patient for 45 days. The claimant suffered multiple injuries over his face;

lacerated wound on scalp temporal region; lacerated wound on right ear,

swelling over right leg suspected fracture. Discharge Summary issued

by the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur reads as under:

“There was rashes all over the body. Possibility of eption toxicity was there so eption was stopped. Gradually he was improving well. At the time of discharge he was looking around, left sided spontaneous movement, right hemiparesis – G-I-II/V, accepting orally semisolid diet without cough; tracheostomy stoma closed; afebrile; voiding on male catheter, it has been explained to relatives that he will improve gradually. The exact extent and duration of recovery is difficult to predict.”

3.1 Doctors of the Medical Board examined the claimant and the

doctors assessed 82% permanent disability and it was found that the

condition of the claimant is not likely to improve. On evidence, it was

found that the claimant is bedridden and not in a position to do/perform

his daily activities without the help of others.

2 3.2 The claimant approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC,

Korba (CG) (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation under

different heads. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal assessed the

permanent partial disability at 70%. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of

Rs.19,98,000/- towards the compensation under different heads. In an

appeal preferred by the claimant, the High Court has enhanced the

compensation to Rs. 27,36,541/-, instead of Rs.19,98,000/- as awarded

by the Tribunal.

3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court, the claimant has preferred the

present appeal.

4. This Court vide order dated 10.11.2021 issued limited notice to

consider the case for enhancement of amount towards loss of amenities,

joy and pain/sufferings.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the claimant and looking to the

grievous injuries suffered by the claimant and permanent partial disability

and prolonged hospitalisation and the operations performed for right

subfrontal craniotomy and evacuation of basifrontal contusion

[03.10.2011]; repair of right ear [03.10.2011]; closed unreamed tibial

interlock nailing [03.10.2011]; and Tracheostomy [05.10.2011], we are of

the opinion that Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities, joy and

Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards pain/sufferings respectively can be said to

3 be on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are

of the opinion that under the aforesaid heads, namely, loss of amenities,

joy and towards pain/sufferings respectively, if a further sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- [over and above Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- on each

count)] is awarded, it will meet the ends of justice.

6. 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 and it is held that the claimant shall be entitled

to a total sum of Rs.29,36,541/- under different heads including a total

sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the heads “loss of amenities and joy and

pain/sufferings”, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum

from the date of application till its realisation. No order as to costs.

………………………………..J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………..J. JANUARY 21, 2022. [SANJIV KHANNA]

4