Supreme Court of India
State Of U.P. & Anr vs M/S. Agra Oil & General Industries on 18 September, 2015Author: A M Sapre

Bench: J. Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre



CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7201-7202 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos. 36512-36513/2013)

Mithusinh Pannasinh Chauhan …….Appellant(s)


Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation & Anr. ……Respondent(s)


Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the common final judgment and
order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in
First Appeal No. 1536 of 2001 and First Appeal No. 1819 of 2001 which arise
out of the award dated 30.05.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (MACT), Panchmhals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.
1071 of 1987.
3. By impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed
by the respondent– Corporation and reduced the compensation awarded to the
appellant–claimant herein by the MACT and in consequence directed him to
refund the excess awarded amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to
the respondent-Corporation and in consequence dismissed the appeal filed by
the appellant herein for seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by
the MACT.
4. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, few
relevant facts need mention infra,

5. On 13.09.1987, when the appellant–claimant was going on his bicycle
from Godhra to Popatpura, at that time, respondent No.2, who was driving
S.T. Bus No. GRU-8749 belonging to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
(in short “Corporation”) came from Lunawada side and hit the appellant as a
result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries. The appellant
was taken to the hospital at Godhra but later on transferred to Baroda
Hospital and from there to Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad for further
treatment. He sustained a serious head injury as a result of which he lost
his memory. Now, he is neither able to speak and nor able to move
properly. He underwent medical treatment in hospital for a long time. At
the time of accident, he was aged about 35 years and was working as a
Constable in SRP. His earning was Rs.1400/- p.m. Due to the accident and
resultant injuries sustained, the appellant unfortunately lost his job
6. The appellant then filed a claim petition being Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 1071 of 1987 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Panchmahals at Godhra under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In
short, “the Act) for award of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs
under various heads. By award dated 30.05.2000, the MACT partly allowed
the appellant’s claim petition and held that accident in question was
caused due to negligence of respondent No.1 therein (respondent No.2
herein) that the appellant had suffered 50% disability in his body due to
injuries sustained and accordingly awarded to him a total sum of
Rs.2,19,000/- as compensation which included expenses in receiving
treatment and compensation for injuries sustained.
7. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the MACT, the appellant
filed an appeal being F.A. No. 1819 of 2001 for enhancement of claim
awarded by the MACT whereas the Corporation-respondent No.1 herein filed
F.A. No. 1536 of 2001 against that part of the award which allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded Rs.2,19,000/- contending that it was on
the higher side and hence be reduced.
8. By the common impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the
appeal filed by respondent- Corporation and held that the claimant is
entitled to Rs.1,15,200/- towards future loss of income instead of
Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the MACT and directed the claimant to refund the
excess amount of Rs.64,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the
respondent–Corporation. As a consequence, the appeal filed by the appellant
herein for enhancement for compensation, was dismissed.
9. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the High Court, the appellant-
claimant has filed these appeals by way of special leave.
10. Heard Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.P.
Bhatt, learned senior counsel for respondent-1(Corporation).
11. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant while assailing the
legality and correctness of the impugned order contended that the High
Court erred in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation
thereby erred in reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant by the
MACT and further erred in dismissing the appellant’s appeal. It was his
submission that having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by
the appellant in the accident and the percentage of permanent disabilities
caused to the appellant due to the injuries on his body such as loss of
speech and memory, his inability to move freely and lastly loss of
permanent job of Constable on account of these disabilities, the MACT
should have awarded Rs.4,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant in his claim
petition rather than awarding Rs.2,19,000/- including expenses incurred on
treatment. Learned counsel contended that since the MACT failed to award
Rs.4,00,000/-, the High Court should have corrected the said error by
enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.4,00,000/- by allowing the
appellant’s appeal and in consequence dismissing the respondent’s appeal.
12. Learned counsel pointed out that the appellant had proved the nature
of injuries so also the resultant disabilities caused to him due to
sustaining of such injuries by examining Dr. Usha Goswami and also from his
own evidence which remained rebutted for want of any evidence adduced by
the respondents and hence taking into account the appellant’s monthly
salary, age 35 years, percentage of permanent disability duly proved (50%
assessed by the MACT and 30% assessed by the High Court), expenses incurred
in receiving long medical treatment in several hospitals proved by
documents (Ex-P-1 to Ex-P-58), future loss of income and lastly
compensation payable under the head of pain and suffering, a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the appellant was just and reasonable compensation
and hence it should have been awarded by the MACT or in any event by the
High Court by modifying the award of the MACT in appellant’s favour.
13. In contra, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 while supporting the impugned judgment contended that it
does not call for any interference. His submission was that having regard
to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the resultant
permanent disability caused to the appellant and the loss caused, what was
awarded by the MACT was on the higher side and, therefore, it was rightly
reduced by the High Court by allowing the respondent’s appeal.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record of the case, we find force in the submissions of the appellant.
15. We have examined the evidence adduced by the parties with a view to
see the nature of injuries and the resultant disability caused to the
appellant due to such injuries.
16. This issue was dealt with by the High Court in Para 6 and we find no
good ground to differ with this finding of the High Court, which is
otherwise not under challenge. It reads as under :
“As far as disability is concerned, Dr. Usha Goswami who has examined the
claimant was Professor in Psychology Department and she is a head of the
Psychology Department in the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. She categorically
stated that due to injury, the claimant has lost his service and he is not
able to speak properly and he had lost his memory and he is unable to move
properly outside. However, the disability certificate was not produced by
the claimant before the Tribunal. Therefore, in absence of disability
certificate, 50% disability was assessed by the Tribunal which is on higher
side. It should be 30% as the claimant is not able to speak and lost his

17. Having rendered the aforementioned finding in appellant’s favour, the
High Court, in our opinion, should not have reduced the compensation
awarded by the MACT but it should have enhanced the compensation by
allowing the appellant’s appeal.
18. In our considered opinion, in a case where the appellant has proved
that he has lost his speaking power as also lost his memory retention power
due to causing of head injury and further he is not able to move freely at
the age of 35 years and lastly due to these injuries, he has also lost his
job, we fail to appreciate as to how and on what reasons the MACT and the
High Court could come to a conclusion that a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-
claimed by the appellant was on a higher side and thus reduced it to
Rs.1,54,200/-. Indeed we found no reason.
19. In our considered opinion, keeping in view of the nature of injuries
sustained by the appellant, resultant permanent disabilities caused to him
to the extent of 50% or 30% due to such injuries which are held proved by
the appellant coupled with the amount spent by him in receiving medical
treatment also duly held proved (Ex-P-1 to Ex-P-58) by him, loosing the
permanent job due to injuries sustained by him, future loss of income
caused as a result of the injuries and lastly the continuous mental pain
and agony suffered by him, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the appellant
by way of compensation is just and reasonable.
20. In a case of this nature, in our opinion, the injuries sustained by
the claimant-appellant herein are more painful because he has to live his
remaining life with such disabilities, which he did not have before
accident. This undoubtedly deprives him to live his normal life. The
Courts below failed to take note of this material fact while determining
the compensation, which in our opinion, calls for interference by this
21. We are not impressed by the submission urged by the counsel appearing
for respondent No.1 as in our opinion in the absence of any rebuttal
evidence adduced by respondent No.1 and in the light of the findings
recorded by the Courts below mentioned supra, the submission is found to be
devoid of any merit and it is accordingly rejected.
22. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals filed by the claimant
succeed and are hereby allowed. Impugned order is modified in appellant-
claimant’s favour by awarding a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- by way of compensation
against respondent No.1-Corporation. An awarded sum, i.e. Rs.4,00,000/-
(Rs. 4 lakhs) would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum payable from
the date of claim petition till realization. No costs.


New Delhi;
September 18, 2015.



Leave a Reply

Sign In


Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.