2003 (7) TMI 687 - SC - Indian Laws

Enhancement of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Whether without any rational basis the High Court has enhanced the compensation, while the Tribunal under the Act had indicated cogent reasons for the award made by it?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of compensation for injuries sustained in a vehicular accident.
2. Assessment of whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving or an act of God.
3. Evaluation of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court.
4. Determination of the appropriate rate of interest on the compensation amount.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Compensation for Injuries Sustained in a Vehicular Accident:
The claimant suffered serious injuries, including a fracture of the T12 vertebra, resulting in paraplegia and permanent loss of limb function. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2.20 lakhs, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 6.25 lakhs. The Supreme Court noted that the claimant was hospitalized for seven weeks and had become a paraplegic, thus requiring compensation for pain, suffering, and future medical expenses.

2. Assessment of Whether the Accident was Due to Rash and Negligent Driving or an Act of God:
The Corporation contended that the accident was an act of God, not due to rash and negligent driving. The Supreme Court clarified that an "act of God" signifies natural forces free from human intervention, such as lightning or storms, and does not apply to situations where preventive action could have been taken. The Court found no merit in the Corporation's argument, implying that the accident was due to negligent driving.

3. Evaluation of the Quantum of Compensation Awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court:
The Supreme Court analyzed the compensation under various heads:
- Pain and Suffering: The High Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000/-, which the Supreme Court found reasonable given the claimant's hospitalization and severe injuries.
- Loss of Future Income: The Tribunal calculated the income at Rs. 12,000/- per annum, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 15,000/-. The Supreme Court found the Tribunal's calculation rational, fixing the annual income at Rs. 12,000/- and applying a multiple of 17, resulting in Rs. 2,04,000/-.
- Loss of Marital Life: The Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,000/-, while the High Court increased it to Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's amount, noting the claimant's bachelor status and lack of special features present in other cases.
- Future Medical Expenses: The High Court awarded Rs. 1 lakh for future expenses, which the Supreme Court reduced to Rs. 50,000/-, considering the claimant's need for regular medical attention and the cost of treatment in a government hospital.

4. Determination of the Appropriate Rate of Interest on the Compensation Amount:
The Tribunal awarded interest at 6% per annum from the date of recording evidence, while the High Court increased it to 9% from the date of the petition. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's rate of interest, finding it justified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 4.5 lakhs as compensation along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the application for compensation until payment. The Court directed that Rs. 3.5 lakhs along with the entire interest be deposited in a fixed deposit for not less than five years in a nationalized bank, with provisions for the claimant to draw interest and request withdrawal in case of urgent need. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, with costs made easy.