Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2018 DIGILAW 1956 (SC)

Ravinder v. Sant Ram

2018-11-27

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, N.V.RAMANA

body2018
ORDER C.A.No.11420/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 38455 of 2016 Leave granted 2. This appeal by way of special leave is directed against order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.3881 of 2001, whereby the High Court set off the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 30,60,000/- (Rupees thirty lacs sixty thousand only) to the appellant herein under various heads. 3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: on 27.02.1998, the appellant, who was 14 at the time, along with others, was travelling in a tempo to go to school. A minibus being driven in a rash manner collided with the tempo resulting in severe injuries to all the occupants of the tempo. The appellant had the gravest injuries. Thereafter the appellant, with 14 other claimants, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak. By common judgment dated 14.12.2000, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) to the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the aforementioned appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By order dated 30.03.2016, the Punjab and Haryana High Court modified the award passed by the Claims Tribunal and awarded compensation of Rs. 30,60,000/- (Rupees thirty lacs sixty thousand only) to the appellant. Thus, this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed before us. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the High Court has granted a meagre amount of compensation to the appellant. He further contended that after the accident, the appellant has been rendered totally devitalized and left in a vegetative state unable to perform even his routine work on his own for entire life and, therefore, he requires an attendant throughout his life. However, the High Court granted a meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to the appellant under the head 'attendant charges'. 6. Having duly considered the submissions of the parties, it is clear that at the time of the accident the appellant was merely 14 years old. After the accident, his father had to take him from one hospital to another for examinations and treatments. And yet, the appellant was adjudged to be 100% disabled with little chance for recovery. He is bedridden, in a vegetative state, and cannot do routine work by himself. After the accident, his father had to take him from one hospital to another for examinations and treatments. And yet, the appellant was adjudged to be 100% disabled with little chance for recovery. He is bedridden, in a vegetative state, and cannot do routine work by himself. An attendant is needed to look after him, perhaps for the rest of his life. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the High Court is inadequate. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, we grant an additional compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only), over and above the amount awarded by the High Court, to the appellant. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The award passed by the Tribunal and the order passed by the High Court stand modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. C.A.No.11482/2018 @ SLP(C) No.31688/18 (D No.37124 of 2016) 9. Delay condoned. 10. Leave granted. 11. This appellant was also a passenger travelling in the aforementioned tempo when the accident with the minibus took place. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.3884 of 2001. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.