Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11466 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 8113 OF 2014)
RAMAN
APPELLANT
Vs.
RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
2.
The
appellant,
represented
through
his
natural
by
the
the
judgment
Division
and
Bench
order
of
dated
the
High
30.10.2013
Court
of
Page1
on
03.11.2011
naked
by
electric
house.
coming
wire
Immediately
in
direct
lying
after
open
the
contact
on
the
incident,
with
roof
the
the
of
his
boy
was
Institute
of
Medical
Sciences,
Rohtak.
The
upto
grievous
arm
pit
injuries
and
left
suffered
leg
upto
were
not
knee
as
the
curable.
On
appellant
certifying
to
be
100%
permanent
disability.
4.
to
remove
the
iron
angle
from
the
of
around
40
to
60
families
which
is
densely
Page2
The
said
writ
petition
was
opposed
by
the
It
its
employees
can
be
held
responsible
or
Page3
(for
procedure
short
of
the
safety
Rules)
and
which
lay
protective
down
devices
the
to
be
in
authorities
nature
to
which
conduct
require
periodical
the
electricity
inspection
of
the
is
protected.
The
learned
Single
Judge
has
catena
of
particularly,
principle
of
cases
the
for
awarding
electrocution
strict
cases,
liability
and
compensation,
and
held
the
consequential
against
the
State
Electricity
Board.
This
Page4
awarded
electrocution
appellate
compensation
in
exercise
jurisdiction,
of
and
to
the
victims
of
the
extraordinary
and
have
held
that
the
electricity
authority
liable
pay
compensation
to
the
the
first
respondent
to
the
to
be
claimant
by
measures.
the
consumer
by
taking
precautionary
Manager,
Kerala
State
Road
Transport
1
2
Road
Transport
Corporation
&
Ors.
v.
Trilok
Page5
Chandra & Ors.3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors.4 and Abati Bezbaruah v.
Dy.
Director
General,
Geological
Survey
of
India
&
Single
Judge,
prior
to
modification
by
the
Page6
Page7
appellant,
certain
other
directions
were
also
Page8
partially
respondents
given
by
on
the
allowing
the
basis
advocate
on
the
of
LPA
the
behalf
filed
by
the
alleged
concession
of
appellant,
the
Page9
10
minor
the
appellant
Mr.
Sushil
Kumar
Jain
that
the
Court
without
their
either
oral
or
written
instructions.
Hence, the appellant has approached this Court with
this appeal questioning the correctness of the impugned
judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High
Court by urging various grounds.
12.
The
learned
senior
counsel
on
behalf
of
the
of
the
High
Court
reducing
the
compensation
Page10
11
has
not
given
such
instructions
to
his
(vi)
of
should
payment
not
of
have
been
modified
Rs.10,000/-p.m.
in
to
place
the
of
of
the
alleged
instructions
received
by
the
Page11
12
by
modification
the
learned
made
as
senior
mentioned
at
counsel,
para
except
in
the
We
have
heard
learned
senior
counsel
for
the
Page12
13
He has to
requires
permanent
attendant
throughout
his
to
Rs.15,000/-
p.m.
and
it
is
hard
Bench
of
the
High
Court
at
the
time
of
and
has
applied
the
guiding
principle
of
purpose
of
computation
of
just
and
reasonable
Page13
14
not
have
been
applied
to
the
case
on
hand,
fall
on
the
roof
of
the
building
by
strictly
Prasad
following
the
Kunal
Saha7,
has
multiplier
method
to
v.
deviated
award
from
just
and
Page14
15
Page15
16
XXX
XXX
Page16
17
Page17
18
rejected
calculate
and
the
use
award
the
of
multiplier
quantum
of
system
to
compensation
19
Page19
20
Page20
21
XXX
XXX
Page21
22
34..In
deciding
on
the
quantum of damages to be paid to
a
person
for
the
personal
injuries suffered by him, the
Court is bound to ascertain all
considerations which will make
good to the sufferer of the
injuries, as far as money can do,
the loss which he has suffered as
a natural consequence of the
wrong done to him. [K. Narasimha
Murthy vs. the Manager, Oriental
Insurance
Company
Limited
and
Anr.]. [ILR 2004 KAR 2471]
35...Therefore, the general principle
which should govern the assessment of
damages in personal injury cases is
that the Court should award to injured
person such a sum of money as will put
him in the same position as he would
have been in if he had not sustained
the injuries. But, it is manifest that
no
award
of
money
can
possibly
compensate an injured man and renew a
shattered human frame.
39..In Mediana, in re [1900 AC 113
(HL)], it is held at para 32 which is
extracted as herein
32.In
personal
injury
cases, the Court is constantly
required to form an estimate of
chances and risks which cannot be
determined with precision. It is
because, the law will disregard
possibilities which are slight or
chances
which
are
nebulous;
otherwise, all the circumstances
of the situation must be taken
into account, whether they relate
to the future which the plaintiff
would
have
enjoyed
if
the
accident had not happened, or to
the future of his injuries and
his
earning
power
after
the
Page22
23
accident.
Damages
are
compensation for an injury or
loss, that is to say, the full
equivalent of money so far as the
nature
of
money
admits;
and
difficulty or uncertainty does
not prevent an assessment. [K.
Narasimha Murthy vs. the Manager,
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Limited and Anr.]
[ILR 2004 KAR
2471]
Page23
24
Page24
25
Baker
v.
Willoughby
has
High
deposited
Court,
out
jointly
in
of
which
the
30
name
lakhs
of
were
the
to
be
appellant
Page25
26
Chief
Engineer
or
respondent-Nigam
in
his
a
nominee
representing
nationalised
Bank
in
the
fixed
court,
it
should
go
to
the
claimant/appellant.
the
Motor
Consumer
Consumer
Vehicle
Disputes
Disputes
Courts
Redressal
Redressal
would
victims/claimants.
Tribunals/Consumer
If
the
Commissions/National
Commission
absolutely
Forums/State
or
belong
claimants
die,
the
High
to
such
then
the
succeed
to
such
estate
by
the
legal
heirs
of
27
hold
that
portion
of
direction
the
of
the
modify
the
as
indicated
in
the
operative
representing
Nationalised
Bank
as
the
respondent-Nigam,
corpus
fund,
out
of
in
the
which
an
Single
side,
Judge,
but
in
cannot
our
be
view,
said
the
to
said
be
on
amount
the
of
Page27
28
regard
to
the
nature
of
100%
and
permanent
requires permanent
said
judgment
are
justifiable
to
the
extent
and
para
aforesaid
in
portion
its
of
judgment
the
as
judgment
indicated
which
is
in
the
wholly
it
would
affect
the
right
of
the
appellant
for
Page28
29
for
the
negligence
on
the
part
of
the
respondents.
21.
In
view
considering
the
100%
of
the
rival
foregoing
legal
permanent
reasons,
contentions
disability
and
after
noticing
suffered
by
the
relation
to
the
guiding
principles
to
be
The
appeal
is
allowed
after
setting
Bench
of
the
High
Court
in
this
judgment
in
the
following
terms.
Page29
30
in
the
modified
form
that
the
guardian
till
the
age
of
The
further
direction
contained
in
We
amount
further
of
declare
compensation
that
of
the
Rs.30
said
lakhs
or
representatives
as
it
is
the
Page30
31
the
negligence
monthly
of
interest
the
that
respondents.
would
The
be
earned
shall
and
after
he
attains
the
of
the
shall
in
the
be
exclusively
learned
name
of
represented
guardians/parents
Single
the
by
till
appellant
his
he
Judge
natural
attains
personal expenses.
deposit
is
made
the
name
of
Chief
appellant
directed above.
shall
be
entered
as
Page31
32
stay
alive,
representatives
his
can
heirs/legal
withdraw
the
said
amount.
(e) The other directions in the judgment
of
the
learned
respondents
for
Single
Judge
compliance
shall
to
the
remain
J.
[V. GOPALA GOWDA]
J.
[C. NAGAPPAN]
New Delhi,
December 17, 2014
Page32
33
ITEM NO.1B-For JUDGMENT
COURT NO.11
SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I N D I A
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Respondent(s)
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Dr.
For Respondent(s)
appeal
is
allowed
in
terms
of
the
signed
reportable judgment.
(VINOD KR.JHA)
COURT MASTER
Page33