In other words, the appellant (claimant) is now entitled to claim a total sum of Rs.8,43,000/­ from the respondents jointly and severally by way of compensation for the injuries sustained, partial and permanent disability occurred, medical expenses incurred and loss occasioned due to injuries sustained by him in the accident.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4398 OF 2016
Anil Kumar ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Branch Manager, National
Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the
final judgment and order dated 19.03.2015 passed by
the High Court of Karnataka Bench at Dharwad in
Misc. First Appeal No. 24385 of 2011(MV) whereby the
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the claimant
(appellant herein) and affirmed the judgment and
award dated 12.04.2011 passed by the Member,
MACT­II, Bellary in M.V.C. No.711 of 2010.
1
2. Few relevant facts need to be mentioned
hereinbelow to appreciate the question involved in the
appeal.
3. The appellant was working as a cleaner in a lorry
bearing Regn. No.AP­21/V­4682 belonging to
respondent No.2 herein. At the relevant time, it was
insured with respondent No.1. On 05.12.2004, at
about 1.00 p.m. near VGM Factory, Belgal Road,
Bellary, when the appellant was standing in front of
the abovementioned lorry for the purpose of loading
iron ore, the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle
without giving any signal or horn and dashed it
against him. As a result of which, the appellant
sustained facture of both pelvic bones with rapture of
urethra and abdomen injuries and other grievous
injuries all over his body. The appellant was then
taken to VIMS Hospital, Bellary for the medical
treatment. The appellant claimed to have spent a
substantial sum towards his medical treatment. Due
2
to the aforementioned injuries sustained by the
appellant, he has become permanently disabled to do
the work which he was doing before the accident. At
the time of accident, the appellant was 25 years of age
and earning Rs.4000/­ per month.
4. The appellant filed a claim petition bearing
M.V.C. No.711 of 2010 before the MACT­II at Bellary
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
claimed compensation from the respondents. It was
contested by the respondents. By award dated
12.04.2011, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant’s
claim petition. It was held that the monthly income of
the appellant­claimant was Rs.4000/­, that the
accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver
of offending vehicle, that the appellant sustained
partial but permanent disability in the whole body to
the extent of 25% and that the age of the appellant
was 25 years on the date of accident. The Tribunal
then applied the multiplier of 18 and accordingly
3
awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/­ towards loss of future
income, Rs.75,000/­ towards pain and sufferings,
Rs.25,000/­ towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/­
towards future medical expenses and Rs.12,000/­
towards loss of income during laid up period. So far
as the liability was concerned, the Tribunal held that
the policy was a package policy equivalent to
comprehensive policy, which covers the risk of cleaner
also.
5. The Tribunal accordingly awarded a total
compensation of Rs.3,43,000/­ with interest payable
at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till
payment against the respondents jointly and severally.
6. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the
Tribunal, the appellant­Claimant filed M.F.A.
No.24385 of 2011(MV) for enhancement of the
compensation before the High Court. The Insurance
Company (respondent No.1 herein) also felt aggrieved
and filed M.F.A. No.23729 of 2011 (MV) before the
4
High Court for setting aside the award passed by the
Tribunal.
7. The High Court, by order dated 19.03.2015,
dismissed both the appeals.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellantclaimant
has filed this appeal by way of special leave
in this Court. So far as the Insurance Companyrespondent
No.1 herein is concerned, they have not
filed any appeal against the impugned order.
9. The short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether any case is
made out on facts/evidence for further enhancement
of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
appellant (claimant).
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we are
inclined to allow the appeal in part and accordingly
enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
the extent indicated infra.
5
11. In our considered opinion, the High Court erred
in dismissing the claimant’s appeal and thus
committed an error in not further enhancing the
compensation. In other words, the appellant was able
to make out a case for further enhancement in the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
and, therefore, he is entitled for enhancement in the
award of compensation on the grounds mentioned
below.
12. First, the appellant (claimant) was a young
unmarried boy of 25 years at the time of accident and
did not suffer with any kind of ailment; Second, the
appellant had sustained fracture of both pelvic bones
with rapture of urethra and abdomen injuries for
which he underwent four operations and suffered
partial but permanent disability in his body which
reduced his movement capacity to a larger extent;
Third, the appellant due to partial but permanent
disability also lost his job; Fourth, he spent a
6
substantial sum for his medical treatment; and lastly,
since the appellant is not still able to move freely due
to disabilities suffered by him, he is entitled to be
suitably compensated by awarding him monetary
compensation.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent (Insurance
Company) urged that no case for any further
enhancement in the compensation is made out and
that the High Court was, therefore, justified in
upholding the award of the Tribunal.
14. We do not agree with the submission urged by
the learned counsel for respondent No.1­Insurance
Company for the abovementioned reasons given by us.
15. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the
grounds mentioned above, which found acceptance to
the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the
appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/­
in lump sum in addition to what has been awarded by
the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.3,43,000/­.
7
16. In other words, the appellant (claimant) is now
entitled to claim a total sum of Rs.8,43,000/­ from the
respondents jointly and severally by way of
compensation for the injuries sustained, partial and
permanent disability occurred, medical expenses
incurred and loss occasioned due to injuries sustained
by him in the accident.
17. We, however, do not award interest on the
enhanced sum of Rs.5,00,000/­, which we have
awarded to the appellant. In this view of the matter,
the appellant is entitled to claim interest only on the
sum of Rs.3,43,000/­ at the rate of 8 % awarded by
the Tribunal.
18. The appeal thus succeeds and is accordingly
allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the award
passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent
indicated above.
19. Respondent No.1 (Insurance Company) is
directed to deposit the awarded amount, as mentioned
8
above, within three months in the Tribunal to enable
the claimant (appellant) to withdraw the awarded sum
after making proper verification by the Tribunal.
……………………………………..J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

……………………………………….J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
New Delhi;
August 31, 2018
9