/2022 INSC 0180/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1540 OF 2022
Sri. Benson George        .. Appellant(s)
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.& Anr.   ..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   28.09.2020   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Karnataka   at   Bengaluru   in   M.F.A.   No.3183   of   2018
(MV),   the   original   claimant   has   preferred   the   present   appeal
with the prayer to enhance the amount of compensation.
1

2. In   a   vehicular   accident   which   occurred   on   01.01.2013
the claimant sustained grievous brain injuries.  He underwent
brain   surgery.     Though   he   was   discharged   from   the   Hospital,
he remained in coma even till the claim petition was filed.   At
the   relevant   time   the   claimant   was   working   as   a   Process
Supervisor   in   Deutsche   Bank   and   earning   Rs.4,59,425/­   per
annum.     That   at   the   time   of   accident   he   was   aged   29   years.
That the claimant through his next friend i.e. his mother filed
a   claim   petition   before   the   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal.
That   the   Learned   Tribunal   awarded   Rs.94,37,300/­   on   the
different heads as under:
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.1,30,000­00
2. Loss   of   income   during   laid   up
period Rs.1,36,000­00
3. Medical expenses Rs.9,91,869­00
4. Loss   of   future   income   due   to
permanent disability Rs.69,48,631­00
5. Loss   of   future   amenities   and
happiness Rs.1,00,000­00
6. Attendant charges Rs.9,20,800­00
7. Extra   nutritious   food   and
conveyance expenses Rs.1,60,000­00
2

8. Future medical expenses Rs.50,000­00
Total Rs.94,37,300­00
The   learned   Tribunal   awarded   interest   at   the   rate   of   9%
per annum from the date of petition till realization.  
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award passed by the learned Tribunal awarding a total sum of
Rs.94,37,300/­   towards   the   compensation   with   9%   interest
both, the Insurance Company as well as the original claimant
preferred   appeals   before   the   High   Court.     By   the   impugned
common   judgment   and   order,   the   High   Court   has   party
allowed   the   appeal   preferred   by   the   claimant   and   has
enhanced   the   amount   of   compensation   from   94,37,300/­   to
Rs.1,24,94,333/­ under different heads as under:
1 Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/­
2 Medical expenses Rs. 9,91,869/­
3 Loss   of   future   income   due   to
permanent disability Rs. 88,02,464/­
4 Loss   of   future   amenities   and
happiness Rs. 1,00,000/­
5 Attendant charges Rs. 20,40,000/­
3

6 Extra   nutritious   food   and
conveyance expenses Rs. 1,60,000/­
7 Future medical expenses Rs. 2,00,000/­
Total Rs.1,24, 94,333/­
The   High   Court   has   however,   reduced   the   interest   from
9%   per   annum   as   awarded   by   the   learned   Tribunal   to   the
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court in not awarding
full claim as prayed for, the original claimant has preferred the
present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant has
vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of
the   case   the   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   in
awarding   Rs.2,00,000/­   only   under   the   head   pain   and
suffering   and   Rs.1,00,000/­   only   under   the   head   of   loss   of
future amenities and happiness.
4

3.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing
on   behalf   of   the   claimant   that   in   the   accident   the   claimant
sustained   grievous   brain   injuries.     He   was   hospitalized   from
01.01.2013   to   15.03.2013   in   St.   John’s   Hospital   and   from
16.03.2013   to   03.05.2013   in   Brain   &   Spine   Centre.     He   has
undergone three major brain operations.   It is submitted that
thereafter all throughout he is in coma and is bedridden.  It is
submitted therefore that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the High Court has erred in awarding Rs.2,00,000/­ only
under  the head  pain  and suffering.   Therefore, it  is prayed to
enhance   the   amount   of   compensation   under   the   head   pain
and   suffering   suitably,   considering   the   period   of
hospitalization,   the   grievous   brain   injuries   sustained   by   the
claimant and that he underwent multiple operations. 
3.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   for
the   claimant   that   in   the   vehicular   accident   the   claimant   has
suffered   100%   disability   and   is   completely   bedridden.     It   is
submitted   that   with   this   disability   he   will   have   to   live   a
5

miserable   life   till   his   death.     He   will   not   be   in   a   position   to
enjoy life and therefore the High Court has committed a grave
error in awarding Rs.1,00,000/­ only towards loss of amenities
and   happiness.     It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has
committed   a   grave   error   in   reducing   the   amount   of   interest
from 9% per annum to 6% per annum.
Making   the   above   submissions   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the
present   appeal   and   to   enhance   the   amount   of   compensation
accordingly.
4. Present   appeal   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Ms.   Prerna
Mehta   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   Insurance
Company.
4.1 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of  Raj
Kumar   vs.   Ajay   Kumar   and   Anr. ,   (2011)   1   SCC   343 ,   it   is
submitted   that   as   held   by   this   Court,   when   compensation   is
awarded   by   treating   the   loss   of   future   earning   capacity   as
100%   the   need   to   award   compensation   separately   under   the
6

head   of   loss   of   amenities   or   loss   of   expectation   of   life   may
disappear   and   as   a   result,   only   a   token   or   nominal   amount
may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or
loss   of   expectation   of   life,   as   otherwise   there   may   be   a
duplication in the award of compensation. 
4.2 It   is   submitted   that   therefore   in   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case no error has been committed by the
High   Court   in   awarding   Rs.1,00,000/­   towards   loss   of
amenities and happiness.
4.3 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the Insurance Company that decision of this Court in
the   case   of   Raj   Kumar   (supra)   has   been   subsequently
considered and followed by this Court in the case of   Lalan D.
alias Lal and Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ,
(2020) 9 SCC 805.
7

4.4 It is also contended by learned counsel for the Insurance
Company   that  in   the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  the
High   Court   has   not   committed   any   error   in   reducing   the
interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum.
5. We   have   learned   counsel   for   the   respective   parties   at
length.
6. It   is   not   in   dispute   and   it   has   come   on   record   that   in   a
vehicular   accident   the   claimant   sustained   grievous   brain
injuries.     That   he   was   hospitalized   for   a   number   of   months.
That   he   undergone   MRI,   CT   scans   and   X­rays.     That   he
sustained   right   temporal   SDH,   multiple   hemorrhagic
contusions   on   temporal   lobe,   left   parieto­occipital   lobe,   left
parietal   lobe   and   bilateral   frontal   lobe,   hemorrhagic
contusions   left   thalamic   region   s/o   grade   II   diffuse   axonal
injury, moderate SAH in right sylvian cistern, moderate diffuse
cerebral   edema,   multiple   comminuted   and   variably   depressed
fracture   in   left   squamous   temporal   and   left   parietal   bone,
8

bilateral   occipital   bone   fracture,   right   sub­occipital   SDH.
Finally   diagnosed   that   traumatic   brain   injury   sequelae­s/p
frontotemporoparietal   hemicraniectomy   and   right   lower   limb
deep vein thrombosis. 
That   the   claimant   underwent   multiple   surgeries.   Left
fronto­   temporoparietal   decompressive   hemicraniectomy   with
lax   duroplasty   done   on   02.01.2013.   He   underwent
Percutaneous   Endoscopic   Gastrotomy   under   GA.   Since   the
petitioner   sustained   very   severe   injuries   to   the   Brain,   he   was
shifted   to   the   Brain   &   Spine   Centre,   Chemmanakary,   Kerala,
where   he   was   admitted   from   16.03.2013   to   03.05.2013.   He
underwent   right   side   VP   shunting   (Chabra   medium   pressure
regular) on 25.03.2013 under GA.  That the claimant is still in
coma and totally bedridden.
  
7. Considering   the   prolonged   hospitalization   and   medical
treatment and that the claimant underwent multiple surgeries,
we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the   High   Court   has   erred   in
awarding   Rs.2,00,000/­   only   under   the   head   pain   and
9

suffering.     The   pain,   suffering   and   trauma   suffered   by   the
claimant   cannot   be   compensated   in   terms   of   the   money.
However,   still   it   will   be   a   solace   to   award   suitable
compensation under different heads including the pain, shock
and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness of life.
  
7.1 In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   due   to   the
prolonged   hospitalization   and   the   multiple   brain
injuries/injuries sustained by the claimant and that he is still
in   coma   and   is   bedridden,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   if   the
amount   of   compensation   under   the   head   of   pain,   shock   and
suffering   is   enhanced   to   Rs.10,00,000/­   (Rupees   Ten   Lakhs),
it can be said to be a reasonable amount under the head pain,
shock and suffering.
7.2 Similarly,   the   amount   of   Rs.1,00,000/­   awarded   by   the
High   Court   under   the   head   loss   of   amenities   and   happiness
can also be said to be on lower side.  As observed hereinabove
no   amount   can   compensate   the   loss   of   amenities   and
10

happiness   more   particularly   a   person   who   is   in   coma   since
number of years and is bedridden for the entire life.  
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
opinion   that   if   the   amount   of   compensation   under   the   head
loss   of   amenities   and   happiness   is   enhanced   to
Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from that of Rs.1,00,000/­
as   awarded   by   the   High   Court,   it   can   be   said   to   be   a
reasonable   amount   under   the   head   loss   of   amenities   and
happiness.
8. Now with regard to reliance placed upon the decisions of
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Raj   Kumar   (supra)   and   Lalan   D.
alias Lal  (supra),  relied upon by learned counsel appearing on
behalf   of   the   Insurance   Company   is   concerned,   we   are   of   the
opinion that the amount of compensation to be awarded under
the   heads,   pain   and   suffering   and   loss   of   amenities   and
happiness,   there   cannot   be   straight   jacket   formula.     It
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it
varies   from   person   to   person   who   has   suffered   due   to   the
11

accident.     So   far   as   awarding   compensation   on   the   head   of
pain,   shock   and   suffering   is   concerned,   multiple   factors   are
required   to   be   considered   namely,   prolonged   hospitalization;
the grievous injuries sustained; the operations underwent and
the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering.
8.1 Similarly, loss of amenities and happiness suffered by the
claimant   and   his   family   members   also   depend   upon   various
factors,   including   the   position   of   the   claimant   post­accident
and whether, he is in a position to enjoy life and/or happiness
which   he   was   enjoying   prior   to   the   accident.     To   what   extent
the   claimant   has   lost   the   amenities   in   life   and   the   happiness
will depend on the facts of each case.  
Therefore,   in  the   facts  and   circumstances  of   the   present
case when the claimant is in coma even after a period of eight
long years and that he will have to be permanently bedridden
during   his   entire   life,   as   observed   above   the   amount   of
compensation   awarded   under   the   head   loss   of   amenities   and
happiness of Rs.1,00,000/­ only is unreasonable and meagre.
12

8.2 Now so  far  as the impugned judgment  and  order  passed
by the High Court reducing the amount of interest from 9% to
6%   per   annum   is   concerned,   in   the   peculiar   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case,   the   same   is   not   required   to   be
interfered   with   by   this   Court   in   exercise   of   powers   under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present   appeal   is   allowed   in   part.     The   impugned   judgment
and  order   passed by  the  High  Court is  modified to  the  extent
and   it   is   held  that  the   original   claimant   shall   be  entitled   to   a
total sum of   Rs.1,41,94,333/­   with interest at the rate of 6%
per   annum   from   the   date   of   filing   the   claim   petition   till
realization.     The   enhanced   amount   of   compensation   shall   be
deposited by  the respondent – Insurance Company  before the
learned   Tribunal   within   a   period   of   four   weeks   from   today,
failing   which,   it   shall   carry   interest   at   the   rate   of   7.5%   per
annum.     On   such   deposit,   the   learned   Tribunal   is   hereby
13

directed   to   ensure   that   the   amount   of   compensation   is
invested   in   long   term   interest   bearing   deposits   in   different
Nationalized   Banks   or   Post   Office   so   that   the   amount   of
compensation   can   be   used   for   the   claimant   and   the   same   is
not flittered away.  
Present   appeal   is   accordingly   partly   allowed   to   the
aforesaid  extent.    In  the   facts  and   circumstances  of   the  case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
        [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI;     ….…………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 25, 2022.      [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
14