AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Appellant/Original Insurer (‘Insurer’) assails the Judgment and Award dated 12th July 2017, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (‘MACT’) in MACP Application No. 1409 of 2013. The Respondent No. 1 / Original Claimant through her husband-Next friend (‘Claimant’), has filed Cross-Objection (St) No. 9650 of 2019 in the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Tribunal held the Appellant liable to pay total compensation of Rs.57,47,071/-to the Respondent No. 1 with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the application till realisation.
The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: -
The Claimant was newly married to her husband, namely, Swapnil Gawde. She was working as an Engineer at M/s Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, earning a handsome salary.
On 28th May 2013, the Claimant was returning from Pune to Mumbai, with her family, in an Innova car. The said Innova car was proceeding in South to North direction on the Western Express Highway. At about 4 a.m., when the Innova car reached Pathanwadi bridge, Malad (E), a Motor Trailer bearing No. MH-04-FJ-6990 came from behind and overtook the Innova car. The Motor trailer driver suddenly applied brakes and swerved from right to left side. As a result, the Innova car smashed into the rear end of the Motor Trailer, injuring all occupants of the Innova car and causing a serious head injury along with other injuries to the Claimant.
The Claimant was rushed to the Bhagwati Hospital from the spot of the accident. After preliminary treatment, she was shifted to Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai due to the seriousness of her injuries.
At the instance of the Claimant’s husband, Swapnil Gawde, the police registered an FIR against the Motor Trailer driver. Upon investigation it was revealed that the Motor Trailer belonged to Respondent No. 2 and was insured with Appellant / Insurer at the time of the accident. It is the case of the Claimant that the accident was caused due to the Motor Trailer being driven in rash and negligent manner and its driver is solely responsible for the accident.
The Claimant has sustained permanent disability, as a result she had to discontinue her job. It is the case of the Claimant that her normal life span has been shortened. At the time of the accident, she was a young lady aged 28 years. She continues to suffer great mental pain, shock and agony. She has spent huge amounts on medical treatment and her disabilities entail recurrent medical expenses for her life time. She is completely dependent on others for her everyday needs. The accident resulted in her total functional, occupational, mental and physical disablement. On the basis of the statement made by Dr. Sushil Tandel (AW/8) and Disability Certificate (Exh. 58), the Tribunal held disability of the Claimant to the extent of 60% to the whole body.
The present Appeal came up for hearing before this Court (Coram: Bharati Dangre, J.) on 05th May 2022. Keeping the First Appeal and Cross Objections pending, this Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal and permitted the Claimant to lead additional evidence, as the doctors who treated the Claimant were not examined, and directed the Tribunal to re-work the amount of compensation. Upon consideration of additional evidence brought on record, the Tribunal reassessed the amount of compensation to be Rs.1,10,58,422/- excluding the expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, miscellaneous expenses, loss of earnings during the period of treatment, general damages such as damages for pain, sufferings and trauma. Under some of the aforesaid heads, by way of the impugned Award, the Claimant was already granted compensation which remained unchanged. It is this Award that is challenged before this Court.
Mr. Rushabh Vidyarthi, learned counsel appeared for the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Appellant and Respondent No. 2.
Order dated 6th November 2025, records that none appeared for the Appellant on that date and last opportunity was given to the Appellant to proceed with the matter. Even on 4th December 2025, none appeared for the Appellant and hence, the matter was taken up for hearing the Cross-Objections. The First Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 4th December, 2025 and the present cross objection is taken up for hearing ex-parte.
Mr. Vidyarthi submitted that even after the re-working of the amount of compensation as directed by this Court in order dated 5th May 2022, the Tribunal has not appreciated various aspects while re-working the quantification. He submits that considering the age of the Claimant at the time of the accident and also that she was gainfully employed in a private company at the time and she lost her employment, the quantum of compensation under the head ‘Pain and Suffering and Loss of amenities of life’ deserves to be increased by at least Rs. 5 lakhs. ‘Loss of amenities of life’ deserves to be granted compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs, which was not granted separately. Moreover, the ‘Gratuitous Service’ also needs to be increased to Rs. 1.5 lakhs. He submits that similarly, the quantum of compensation towards ‘Loss of Matrimonial and other pleasures of life’ as well as ‘Value of a housewife’ also needs to be increased. According to Mr. Vidyarthi, the final amount of compensation excluding the expenses relating to medical treatment must be computed at Rs. 2,89,29,714/-. He thus, prays that the said amount be granted.
Mr. Vidyarthi has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of K. S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and anr1 to buttress his claim regarding the computation of compensation relating to "Pain and suffering".
I have gone through the evidence of the doctors recorded after the remand. Dr. Abhishek Srivastava has specifically deposed in his cross-examination that 8 years have elapsed since the injury and the Claimant will continue to have persistent sequel which is not likely to improve. Dr. Suresh Sankhala, practicing as a neurosurgeon for last 25 years stated that the Claimant requires assistance for severe problems relating to her memory, speech, vision, hand movement and walking. Due to third nerve palsy, she also has a vision problem in her left eye. Dr. Mohit Shah, Dr. Jayanti Mani and Dr. Sanika Wadh, have all reiterated the same diagnoses.
Mr. Vidyarthi has limited his Cross Objection to the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of ‘Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities of life’; ‘Loss of amenities of life’ and ‘Loss of income during treatment’. As far as ‘Pain and Suffering and Loss of amenities of life’ is concerned, it is clear from the testimony of the doctors that the Claimant has physical discomfort and distress which also includes mental and emotional trauma for which damages can be recovered in an accident claim. The Supreme Court in K. S. Muralidhar (Supra) has observed that while each discipline has its own conception of pain/suffering within its confines, the commonality that emerges is that a person's understanding of oneself is shaken at the roots, at the hands of consistent suffering. Admittedly, the Tribunal in the revised order dated 15th November 2022, has held that the Claimant is suffering from total permanent disability i.e. 100% disability. However, the ‘Pain and Suffering and Loss of amenities’ compensation was maintained at Rs. 5 lakhs. As per the Muralidhar (Supra) decision, considering the lifelong nature of the disability, I find that the prayer of the Claimant for enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to be just, fair and reasonable. Consequent to the above discussion, on 'Pain and Suffering and Loss of amenities' the total amount now payable shall be Rs. 15 lakhs.
The enhanced claim under the heading 'Loss of Income during Treatment', is repetitive and has already been dealt with by the Tribunal under the heading 'Future loss of Income / Loss future earnings' hence, the enhanced claim is redundant. Further, the other headings under which the Claimant seeks compensation namely, Lost Life Principle, Loss of Expectation of Life, and Inevitable Expenses, are already taken into consideration while computing compensation under various other heads and need not be addressed separately.
Considering the aforesaid, the compensation under the head ‘Pain and Suffering and Loss of amenities of life is increased by Rs. 10 lakhs. The rest of the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal shall remain as it is. Thus, the total compensation to be paid shall be Rs. 1,20,58,422/-.
In view thereof, the Cross Objections are partly allowed. The Appellant is directed to deposit the additional Rs. 10 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. thereof, with the MACT, from the date of the application till realisation within a period of three weeks from today. If the Appellant has deposited the amount of compensation as per the impugned Judgment and Award, the Claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. The Claimant shall pay the deficit court fees, if any, as per Rules.
No costs.
Footnotes
- 1.2024 SCC OnLine SC 3385