1

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.

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN

NIGAM LTD.& ORS.

RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
2.

The

appellant,

represented

through

his

natural

guardian father - Manoj Kumar, has filed this appeal

questioning
passed

by

the
the

judgment
Division

and
Bench

order
of

dated

the

High

30.10.2013
Court

of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the Letters Patent

Appeal No.1631 of 2013 in Civil Writ Petition No. 14046
of 2012.
3.

The brief facts are stated herein:

The appellant, a four year old boy was electrocuted

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

taken for first aid to a nearby R.M. Anand Hospital in

Panipat, Haryana from where he was referred to Post
Graduate

Institute

of

Medical

Sciences,

Rohtak.

The

final treatment was given at Safdarjang Hospital, New

Delhi, where the doctors left with no other option but
to carry out triple amputation by removing both his
arms

upto

grievous

arm

pit

injuries

and

left

suffered

leg

upto

were

not

knee

as

the

curable.

On

08.02.2012, the disability certificate was issued to

the

appellant

certifying

to

be

100%

permanent

disability.

4.

It is stated on behalf of the appellant that prior

to this tragic incident, on 16.08.2011 the appellants

father along with other neighbours had approached the
SDO, Chhajpur, Panipat i.e. respondent No. 3 through a
representation,

to

remove

the

iron

angle

from

the

vicinity of the residential area, as it endangers the

life

of

around

40

to

60

families

which

is

densely

populated. But no action was taken by him.

Page2

5. The appellant approached the High Court by filing a

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking for an award of compensation from the
respondents on account of the negligence on the part of
the respondents which resulted in the tragic electric
shock leading to triple amputation of the appellant.
6.

The

said

writ

petition

was

opposed

by

the

respondents by filing a written statement denying the

allegations made therein stating that the iron angle
found on the roof of the house was not installed by any
employee of the respondent electricity department.

It

is stated by the respondents that the father of the

appellant was to be squarely blamed for installing the
insulator himself on the roof of the house on which
high tension wire was erected to keep it at bay so as
not to touch brick and mortal.

Therefore, neither the

first respondent-Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.

nor

its

employees

can

be

held

responsible

or

accountable for the mishap occurred on the fateful day

much less the damages or monetary compensation to be
awarded in favour of the appellant herein.
7.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court adverted

Page3

to Section 68 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for

short the Act) and Rule 91 of the Electricity Rules,
1956

(for

procedure

short
of

the

safety

Rules)
and

which

lay

protective

down

devices

the

to

be

provided for overhead electric lines erected over any

part of the street or public place or any consumers
premises and mandate that those shall be protected with
a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the
line electrically harmless in case it breaks.
8.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court further

referred to Rules 29, 44 and 46 of the Rules which are

statutory

in

authorities

nature

to

which

conduct

require

periodical

the

electricity

inspection

of

the

lines maintained by them and to take all such safety

measures to prevent accident and maintain the lines in
such a manner that life and property of the general
public

is

protected.

The

learned

Single

Judge

has

considered the position of law declared by this Court

in

catena

of

particularly,
principle

of

cases

the

for

awarding

electrocution

strict

cases,

liability

and

compensation,
and

held

the

consequential

negligence in awarding compensation in favour of the

claimant

against

the

State

Electricity

Board.

This

Page4

Court and the various High Courts such as High Courts

of Madras, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Kerala and Gujarat
have

awarded

electrocution
appellate

compensation
in

exercise

jurisdiction,

of
and

to

the

victims

of

the

extraordinary

and

have

held

that

the

Electricity Board Supply Companies are duty bound to

take precautionary measures under the provisions of the
Act.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge has held the

electricity

authority

liable

pay

compensation

to

the

the

first

respondent
to

the

to

be

claimant

irrespective of the fact that the harm could have been

avoided

by

measures.

the

consumer

by

taking

precautionary

The learned Single Judge of the High Court

has referred to various judgments of this Court as well

as the aforesaid High Courts rendered under the Motor
Vehicles Act for determination and awarding just and
reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant, viz.
General

Manager,

Kerala

State

Road

Transport

Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors.1,

Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav & Ors.2, U.P.
State

1
2

Road

Transport

Corporation

&

Ors.

v.

Trilok

(1994) 2 SCC 176

(1996) 3 SCC 179

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

&

Anr.5 by applying the multiplier method as specified in

the schedule of the M.V. Act.
9.

The learned Single Judge awarded compensation to

the appellant and issued directions to the respondent

which runs into (xiii) clauses/paragraphs. Therelevant
paragraph Nos. (v) and (vi) of the judgment of the
learned

Single

Judge,

prior

to

modification

by

the

Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment, are

extracted below:
v) In order to secure the financial and
monetary future of the minor Raman, it is
directed that the respondent-Nigam would pay
compensation
of
Rs.
30
lacs
to
him
immediately for loss of enjoyment of life,
trauma suffered and to act as a guard against
neglect and dependence on others, loss of
future employability and the agony of it all,
pain and mental shock suffered and continue
to be suffered by an irreconcilable event
that has completely changed the life of a
family.
This
amount
would
when
made
available with interest on reaching the age
of 21 years act as a financial security and
building block for the future.
The amount
will be deposited in a fixed deposit account
in the name of the petitioner (minor) under
joint guardianship of the parents of Raman
3
4
5

(1996) 4 SCC 362

(2002) 6 SCC 306
(2003) 3 SCC 148

Page6

and the Engineer-in-Chief or his nominee

representing
the
respondent-Nigam,
in
a
nationalised bank, preferably in the State
Bank of Patiala, Branch at Punjab and Haryana
High Court, Chandigarh.
The amount is
directed to be so deposited within 60 days of
receipt of certified copy of this order
failing which the amount will carry 8.5%
interest till deposit in the Bank where after
the principal amount will earn interest at
bank rates for fixed deposits fixed from time
to time.
However, the amount awarded under
this head will only be available to the minor
Raman on attaining the age of majority i.e.
21 years.
In case the minor Raman does not
survive till the age of majority, this amount
with all interest accrued shall revert to the
respondent-Nigam with no claim on it by any
third party or the parents or siblings of
Raman.
This would ensure that the child is
valued
and
cared
for
till
he
attains
majority.
vi) Since the above amount of Rs.30 lakhs
would remain inaccessible to the petitioner
for his use he would require running income
to
meet
his
daily
expenses
for
paid
caregivers/attendants or family help/labour
equivalent to such expenses and other bare
and sundry expenses, which are quantified at
about Rs.20,000/- plus per month for life as
at present. To earn interest of Rs.20,000/per month a corpus of Rs. 30 lakhs is
required to be invested in the Bank to earn
interest @
8.5% being current rates on long
term fixed deposits.
Therefore, in addition
to Rs.30 Lakhs as awarded in direction (v),
the respondent-Nigam would pay and deposit
compensation of a further amount of Rs.30
lakhs to be kept in a separate interest
bearing account in the same bank as directed
under point no. (v), under the same joint
guardianship arrangement.
This will be an
interest
accruing
account
with
interest
proceeds available to meet the day-to-day
needs of the petitioner.
The interest so

Page7

accrued will be transferred in a separate

savings bank account to be opened in the same
branch in minor Ramans name to be operated
jointly by the parents payable to the
petitioner on regular monthly basis to be
applied for the care of the child by the
parents, his educational expenses, nutritious
food, costs of attendants/care givers to
minister to him day after day etc.
The
above amount of Rs.30 lacks from which
interest will be used for the petitioner from
month to month will also not be allowed to be
withdrawn
for
any
purpose,
till
the
petitioner attains the age of 21, without
obtaining
orders
from
this
Court,
if
circumstances so warrant, except the monthly
interest as directed.
The State Bank of
Patiala, Branch at Punjab and Haryana High
Court, Chandigarh would open the said Savings
Bank Account in the name of the minor; under
the guardianship of mother and father and
transfer the said savings Bank Account to the
Branch nearest to the residence of the
petitioner and the bank would remit the
interest accrued thereon every month to the
said savings account at Panipat Branch, to be
auto-renewed till the petitioner reaches the
age of 21 years.
The amount is directed to
be so deposited within 60 days of receipt of
certified copy of this order failing which
the amount will carry 8.5% interest till
deposit in the bank where after the principal
amount will earn interest at bank rates for
fixed deposits from time to time.
In addition to the compensation awarded by the
learned Single Judge in the above terms in favour of
the

appellant,

certain

other

directions

were

also

given to the respondents for its compliance to avert

any unfortunate electrocution accidents in future.

Page8

10. Being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated

02.07.2013 of the learned Single Judge, the respondents
filed the LPA in the High Court urging various grounds
and prayed to set aside the same.

The Division Bench

of the High Court on 30.10.2013 passed a cryptic order

while

partially

respondents
given

by

on

the

allowing
the

basis

advocate

on

the
of

LPA

the

behalf

filed

by

the

alleged

concession

of

appellant,

the

holding that the learned counsel for the parties have

obtained requisite instructions and they are ad idem
that instant appeal be disposed of on the following
agreed terms, which read thus:(1) The impugned order is accepted by
the parties, except to the extent of
modification hereinafter specified.
(2)
The
amount
of
Rs.
30
lakhs
specified
in
clause
(v)
of
the
direction would be deposited in the
State Bank of Patiala, Panipat Branch,
instead of Branch at Punjab and Haryana
High Court, Chandigarh.
(3) This amount will be deposited
within 10 days in the account number
given to the appellants and to be
converted immediately into FDR in terms
of directions contained in same subpara;and
(4) The directions given in sub-para
(vi) will stand substituted by a
direction to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/p.m. on or before 7th of every month in
advance, directly to the bank account
already intimated and such payment will

Page9

10

continue to be made till the

attains the age of 21 years.

minor

11. It is urged by the learned senior counsel on behalf

of

the

appellant

Mr.

Sushil

Kumar

Jain

that

the

unfortunate appellant boy or his parents who are his

natural guardians in the proceedings were unaware of
the nexus of their advocate with the respondents and
when they came to know about the order passed in LPA, a
legal notice dated 27.01.2014 was sent to his advocate
for purging from breach of trust and for committing
professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961
in giving concession before the Division Bench of the
High

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

appellant has contended that the order of the Division

Bench

of

the

High

Court

reducing

the

compensation

amount awarded by the learned Single Judge from Rs. 60

lakhs to Rs.30 lakhs and reducing the monthly payment

Page10

11

from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/-, till he attains the

age of 21 years, on account of ad idem, which in fact
is arbitrary, unreasonable and is not correct, as the
appellant

has

not

given

such

instructions

to

his

lawyer to give concessions before the Division Bench

for reducing the compensation awarded by the learned
Single Judge.
13. It is further urged by the learned senior counsel
on behalf of the appellant that the Division Bench of
the High Court was required to examine the case keeping
in mind the nature of grievous injuries sustained by
the appellant in the electrocution accident and the
compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge under
sub-para
extent

(vi)
of

should

payment

not

of

have

been

modified

Rs.10,000/-p.m.

in

to

place

the
of

Rs.20,000/- p.m. as per the impugned judgment, on the

basis

of

the

alleged

instructions

received

by

the

counsel from the appellant and disposed of the appeal

by passing impugned judgment by reducing compensation
awarded in favour of the appellant, which action of it
is wholly unsustainable in law and therefore, the same
is liable to be set aside.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Narendra Hooda, the learned

Page11

12

senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

submitted that there is no reduction of compensation
awarded

by

modification

the

learned

made

as

senior

mentioned

at

counsel,
para

except
in

the

impugned judgment to the extent of Rs.10,000/- p.m.

instead of Rs.20,000/-p.m. towards monthly expenses of
the appellant which would not affect the rights of the
appellant and hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the
appeal as the same is devoid of merit.
15.

We

have

heard

learned

senior

counsel

for

the

parties who have made their respective submissions in

support of their respective claim which were carefully
examined by us with reference to the undisputed facts,
particularly, the amputation of both the arms upto the
arm pit and the left leg upto knee which has resulted
in 100% permanent disability caused to the appellant as
per the Doctors certificate which is produced in the
case.
16.

Having regard to the age of the boy as 5 years at

the time of the incidence and longevity of life of

Indian citizen as 70 years, the remaining 65 years the
appellant is required to suffer from mental agony and
hardship. He is virtually dead wood and further he has

Page12

13

to undergo continuous pain and suffering at the time of

attending the natures call, sitting, standing, walking
and sleeping. He has to face difficulties on all walks
of life, which is worse than death. His childhood is
lost, the marital status and happiness is lost, which
cannot be compensated in terms of money.

He has to

undergo the great ordeal and agony throughout his life.

He

requires

permanent

attendant

throughout

his

lifetime to assist him for all purposes, to whom the

appellant is required to pay minimum at an average of
Rs.10,000/-

to

Rs.15,000/-

p.m.

and

it

is

hard

reality that the cost of living in our country is also

steadily increasing day by day.

This aspect of the

matter should have been taken into consideration by the

Division

Bench

of

the

High

Court

at

the

time

of

reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant.

17. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has
awarded compensation keeping all these aspects of the
matter

and

has

applied

the

guiding

principle

of

multiplier method after adverting to the case of Sarla

Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr6. for
the
6

purpose

of

computation

of

just

and

reasonable

(2009) 6 SCC 121

Page13

14

compensation in favour of the appellant which method

should

not

have

been

applied

to

the

case

on

hand,

particularly, having regard to the statutory negligence

on the part of the respondents in not providing the
safety measures to see that live electric wires should
not

fall

on

the

roof

of

the

building

by

strictly

following the Rules to protect the lives of the public

in the residential area.
Balram

Prasad

following

the

This Court in the case of Dr.

Kunal

Saha7,

has

multiplier

method

to

v.

deviated
award

from

just

and

reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant in a

medical negligence case. The same principle will hold
good in the case on hand too. The following case law is
followed by this Court in the above referred case, the
relevant paragraphs are extracted herein to award just
and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant:
68. .. three-Judge Bench decision of
this Court in Indian Medical Assn. v.
V.P. Shantha, wherein this Court has
categorically disagreed on this specific
point in another case wherein medical
negligence was involved. In the said
decision, it has been held at para 53
that to deny a legitimate claim or to
restrict arbitrarily the size of an
award
would
amount
to
substantial
injustice to the claimant.
*********
7

(2014) 1 SCC 384

Page14

15

99. In Govind Yadav v. New India

Insurance Co. Ltd. this Court at para 15
observed as under which got reiterated at
SCC pp. 639-40, para 13 of Ibrahim v.
Raju:
15. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan
[(2009) 13 SCC 422] this Court reiterated
that the compensation awarded under
the Act should be just and also
identified the factors which should
be kept in mind while determining the
amount of compensation. The relevant
portions
of
the
judgment
are
extracted below:
26. The compensation which is
required to be determined must be
just. While the claimants are
required to be compensated for the
loss of their dependency, the same
should not be considered to be a
windfall. Unjust enrichment should
be discouraged. This Court cannot
also lose sight of the fact that
in given cases, as for example
death of the only son to a mother,
she can never be compensated in
monetary terms.
27.
The
question
as
to
the
methodology required to be applied
for determination of compensation
as regards prospective loss of
future earnings, however, as far
as possible should be based on
certain principles. A person may
have a bright future prospect; he
might have become eligible to
promotion immediately; there might
have been chances of an immediate
pay revision, whereas in another
(sic situation) the nature of
employment was such that he might

Page15

16

not have continued in service; his

chance of promotion, having regard
to the nature of employment may be
distant
or
remote.
It
is,
therefore, difficult for any court
to lay down rigid tests which
should
be
applied
in
all
situations. There are divergent
views. In some cases it has been
suggested
that
some
sort
of
hypotheses or guesswork may be
inevitable. That may be so.
XXX

XXX

XXX

46. In the Indian context several

other factors should be taken into
consideration including education
of the dependants and the nature
of job. In the wake of changed
societal conditions and global
scenario, future prospects may
have
to
be
taken
into
consideration
not
only
having
regard to the status of the
employee,
his
educational
qualification;
his
past
performance
but
also
other
relevant
factors,
namely,
the
higher salaries and perks which
are being offered by the private
companies these days. In fact
while determining the multiplicand
this Court in Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben held that
even dearness allowance and perks
with regard thereto from which the
family would have derived monthly
benefit,
must
be
taken
into
consideration.
47. One of the incidental issues
which has also to be taken into
consideration is inflation. Is the

Page16

17

practice of taking inflation into

consideration
wholly
incorrect?
Unfortunately,
unlike
other
developed
countries,
in
India
there
has
been
no
scientific
study. It is expected that with
the rising inflation the rate of
interest would go up. In India it
does not happen. It, therefore,
may be a relevant factor which may
be taken into consideration for
determining
the
actual
ground
reality. No hard-and-fast rule,
however,
can
be
laid
down
therefor.
********
101. .. he has also strongly placed
reliance upon the observations made at para
170 in Malay Kumar Gangulys case referred to
supra
wherein
this
Court
has
made
observations as thus: (SCC p. 282)
170.
Indisputably,
grant
of
compensation involving an accident is
within the realm of law of torts. It
is
based
on
the
principle
of
restitutio
in
integrum.
The
said
principle
provides
that
a
person
entitled to damages should, as nearly
as possible, get that sum of money
which would put him in the same
position as he would have been if he
had not sustained the wrong. (See
Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co.)
**********
103.1. In Ningammas case, this Court has
observed at para 34 which reads thus: (SCC p.
721)
34. .in our considered opinion a
party should not be deprived from
getting just compensation in case

Page17

18

the claimant is able to make out a

case under any provision of law.
Needless
to
say,
the
MVA
is
beneficial and welfare legislation.
In fact, the court is duty-bound and
entitled to award just compensation
irrespective of the fact whether any
plea in that behalf was raised by the
claimant or not.
*********
112. The claimant has also placed reliance
upon Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences v.
Prasanth S.Dhanankas [(2009) 2 SCC 688] case
in support of his submission that if a case
is made out, then the Court must not be chary
of
awarding
adequate
compensation.
The
relevant paragraph reads as under:
88. We must emphasise that the court
has to strike a balance between the
inflated and unreasonable demands of
a victim and the equally untenable
claim of the opposite party saying
that nothing is payable. Sympathy for
the victim does not, and should not,
come in the way of making a correct
assessment, but if a case is made
out, the court must not be chary of
awarding adequate compensation. The
adequate compensation that we speak
of, must to some extent, be a rule of
thumb measure, and as a balance has
to be struck, it would be difficult
to
satisfy
all
the
parties
concerned.
Further in para 119, it is held this Court
has

rejected

calculate

and

the

use

award

the

of

multiplier

quantum

of

system

to

compensation

which must be just and reasonable. The relevant

Page18

19

paragraph is quoted hereunder: (SCC para 92)

92. Mr Tandale, the learned counsel

for
the
respondent
has,
further
submitted that the proper method for
determining compensation would be the
multiplier method. We find absolutely
no merit in this plea. The kind of
damage
that
the
complainant
has
suffered, the expenditure that he has
incurred and is likely to incur in the
future and the possibility that his
rise in his chosen field would now be
restricted, are matters which cannot be
taken care of under the multiplier
method.
(emphasis supplied)
Further under paragraph No. 121, the relevant
paragraph from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Patricia Jean Mahajan read as under: (SCC pp. 295-96,
paras 20)
20.
The
court
cannot
be
totally
oblivious to the realities. The Second
Schedule
while
prescribing
the
multiplier, had maximum income of Rs
40,000
p.a.
in
mind,
but
it
is
considered to be a safe guide for
applying the prescribed multiplier in
cases of higher income also but in cases
where the gap in income is so wide as in
the present case income is 2,26,297
dollars, in such a situation, it cannot
be said that some deviation in the
multiplier
would
be
impermissible.
Therefore, a deviation from applying the
multiplier as provided in the Second
Schedule may have to be made in this
case.
Apart
from
factors
indicated

Page19

20

earlier the amount of multiplicand also

becomes a factor to be taken into
account which in this case comes to
2,26,297 dollars, that is to say, an
amount of around Rs 68 lakhs per annum
by converting it at the rate of Rs 30.
By Indian standards it is certainly a
high amount. Therefore, for the purposes
of
fair
compensation,
a
lesser
multiplier can be applied to a heavy
amount of multiplicand. A deviation
would be reasonably permissible in the
figure of multiplier even according to
the observations made in Susamma Thomas
where a specific example was given about
a person dying at the age of 45 leaving
no heirs being a bachelor except his
parents.
(emphasis supplied)
Further, in paragraph 177, it was held as under:177. Under the heading of loss due to
pain and suffering and loss of amenities
of the wife of the claimant, Kemp and Kemp
write as under:
"The award to a plaintiff of damages
under the head "pain and suffering"
depends as Lord Scarman said in Lim
Poh Choo v. Camden and Islington
Area health Authority, "upon the
claimants personal awareness of
pain, her capacity of suffering.
Accordingly, no award is appropriate
if and in so far as the claimant has
not suffered and is not likely to
suffer pain, and has not endured and
is not likely to endure suffering,
for example, because he was rendered
immediately
and
permanently
unconscious in the accident. By
contrast, an award of damages in

Page20

21

respect of loss of amenities is

appropriate whenever there is in
fact such a loss regardless of the
claimant's awareness of the loss."
XXX

XXX

XXX

Even though the claimant may die

from his injuries shortly after the
accident, the evidence may justify
an award under this head. Shock
should also be taken account of as
an ingredient of pain and suffering
and
the
claimant's
particular
circumstances may well be highly
relevant to the extent of her
suffering. ..........
By
considering
the
nature
of
amenities lost and the injury and
pain in the particular case, the
court must assess the effect upon
the particular claimant. In deciding
the appropriate award of damages, an
important consideration show long
will
he
be
deprived
of
those
amenities and how long the pain and
suffering has been and will be
endured. If it is for the rest of
his life the court will need to take
into account in assessing damages
the
claimant's
age
and
his
expectation in life.
(emphasis supplied)
18. Further, in the case of Rekha Jain v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd.8 this Court at paras 34 and 35, with
regard to the quantum of damages, has held as under:
8

(2013) 8 SCC 389

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]

In Fowler v. Grace, [(1970) 114 Sol Jo 193 (CA)]

Edmund Davies, L.J., has said that:
It is the manifest duty of the
Tribunal to give as perfect a sum
as was within its power'. There are
many losses which cannot easily be
expressed in terms of money. If a
person, in an accident, loses his
sight, hearing or smelling faculty
or
a
limb,
value
of
such
deprivation cannot be assessed in
terms of market value because there
is no market value for the personal
asset which has been lost in the
accident, and there is no easy way
of expressing its equivalent in
terms of money.
41. McGregor on Damages (14th Edn.) at
Para 1157, referring to the heads of
damages in personal injury actions, states
as under:
The person physically injured may
recover both for his pecuniary losses
and his non-pecuniary losses. Of
these the pecuniary losses themselves
comprise two separate items viz. the
loss of earnings and other gains

Page23

24

which the plaintiff would have made

had he not been injured and the
medical and other expenses to which
he is put as a result of the injury,
and the courts have subdivided the
non-pecuniary
losses
into
three
categories viz. pain and suffering,
loss of amenities of life and loss of
expectation of life.
Besides, the Court is well
advised to remember that the measures
of damages in all these cases should
be
such
as
to
enable
even
a
tortfeasor to say that he had amply
atoned for his misadventure. The
observation of Lord Devlin that the
proper approach to the problem or to
adopt a test as to what contemporary
society would deem to be a fair sum,
such as would allow the wrongdoer to
hold
up
his
head
among
his
neighbours
and
say
with
their
approval that he has done the fair
thing, is quite apposite to be kept
in mind by the Court in assessing
compensation
in
personal
injury
cases.
(emphasis supplied)
42. In R. Venkatesh v. P. Saravanan the High
Court of Karnataka while dealing with a
personal injury case wherein the claimant
sustained certain crushing injuries due to
which his left lower limb was amputated,
held that in terms of functional disability,
the disability sustained by the claimant is
total and 100% though only the claimants
left lower limb was amputated. In para 9 of
the judgment, the Court held as under: (Kant
LJ p. 415)
9. As a result of the amputation,
the claimant had been rendered a
cripple. He requires the help of

Page24

25

crutches even for walking. He has

become unfit for any kind of manual
work. As he was earlier a loader
doing manual work, the amputation of
his left leg below the knee, has
rendered him unfit for any kind of
manual work. He has no education. In
such cases, it is well settled that
the
economic
and
functional
disability will have to be treated as
total,
even
though
the
physical
disability is not 100%.
43. Lord Reid in
said: (AC p. 492A)

Baker

v.

Willoughby

has

A man is not compensated for the

physical injury: he is compensated
for the loss which he suffers as a
result of that injury. His loss is
not in having a stiff leg: it is in
his inability to lead a full life,
his
inability
to
enjoy
those
amenities which depend on freedom of
movement and his inability to earn as
much as he used to earn or could have
earned.
19.

In view of the law laid down by this Court in the

above referred cases which are extensively considered

and granted just and reasonable compensation, in our
considered view, the compensation awarded at Rs. 60
lakhs in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of
the

High

deposited

Court,

out

jointly

in

of

which
the

30

name

lakhs
of

were

the

to

be

appellant

represented by his parents as natural guardian and the

Page25

26

Chief

Engineer

or

respondent-Nigam

in

his
a

nominee

representing

nationalised

Bank

in

the
fixed

deposit till he attains the age of majority, is just

and proper but we have to set aside that portion of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge directing that if
he survives, he is permitted to withdraw the amount,
otherwise the deposit amount shall be reverted back to
the respondents as the same is not legal and valid for
the reason that once compensation amount is awarded by
the

court,

it

should

go

to

the

claimant/appellant.

Therefore, the victims/claimants are legally entitled

for compensation to be awarded in their favour as per
the principles/guiding factors laid down by this Court
in catena of cases, particularly, in Kunal Sahas case
referred to supra. Therefore, the compensation awarded
by

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

Succession Act of their respective religion would apply

to

succeed

to

such

estate

by

the

legal

heirs

of

victims/ claimants or legal representatives as per the

Page26

27

testamentary document if they choose to execute the

will indicating their desire as to whom such estate
shall go after their death.
we

hold

that

portion

of

For the aforesaid reasons,

the

direction

the

of

the

learned Single Judge contained in sub-para (v), to the

effect of Rs. 30 lakhs compensation to be awarded in
favour of the appellant, if he is not alive at the time
he attains majority, the same shall revert back to the
respondent-Nigam after paying Rs.5 lakhs to the parents
of the appellant, is wholly unsustainable and is liable
to be set aside.
and

modify

the

Accordingly, we set aside the same

same

as

indicated

in

the

operative

portion of the order.

20. The remaining compensation amount of Rs. 30 lakhs
to be deposited in a fixed deposit account in the name
of the petitioner (minor) under joint guardianship of
the parents of Raman and the Engineer-in-Chief or his
nominee

representing

Nationalised

Bank

as

the

respondent-Nigam,

corpus

fund,

out

of

in

the

which

an

interest of Rs.20,000/- p.m. towards the expenses as

indicated in sub-para (vi) of the order passed by the
learned
higher

Single
side,

Judge,

but

in

cannot
our

be

view,

said
the

to
said

be

on

amount

the
of

Page27

28

compensation awarded is less and not reasonable

having

regard

to

the

nature

of

100%

and

permanent

disability suffered by the appellant, it should have

been much higher as the appellant

requires permanent

assistance of an attendant, treatment charges as he is

suffering from agony and loss of marital life, which
cannot be compensated by the amount of compensation
awarded by the learned Singh Judge of the High Court.
Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, it would be just and proper for this Court to
restore the judgment of the learned Single Judge on
this count and we hold that the directions contained in
the

said

judgment

are

justifiable

to

the

extent

indicated above. The Division Bench while exercising

its appellate jurisdiction should not have accepted the
alleged requisite instructions received by the counsel
on behalf of the appellant and treated as ad idem
modified

and

the amount as provided under sub-para (vi) of

the order of the learned Single Judge and substituted

the

para

aforesaid

in

portion

its
of

judgment
the

as

judgment

indicated
which

is

in

the

wholly

unreasonable and therefore, it is unsustainable in law

as

it

would

affect

the

right

of

the

appellant

for

Page28

29

getting his legal entitlement of just and reasonable

compensation

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

appellant in the electrocution accident on account

of which he lost all the amenities and become a
deadwood throughout his life, and after adverting
the law laid down by this Court in catena of cases
in

relation

to

the

guiding

principles

to

be

followed to award just and reasonable compensation

in favour of the appellant, we pass the following
order:(I)

The

appeal

is

allowed

after

setting

aside the substituted paragraph No.4 of

the impugned judgment and order of the
Division

Bench

of

the

High

Court

particularly, in place of sub para (vi)

of the judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge with modifications made by
us

in

this

judgment

in

the

following

terms.

Page29

30

(II) We restore the compensation awarded at

sub-paras (v) and (vi) of the order of
the learned single Judge:
(a)

in

the

modified

form

that

the

compensation is awarded with direction to

the respondents to keep Rs.30 lakhs in
the Nationalised Bank in the name of the
appellant represented by his father as a
natural

guardian

till

the

age

of

attaining majority of the appellant.

(b)

The

further

direction

contained

in

the judgment of the learned Single Judge

that if the appellant is not alive at the
time of attaining the age of majority,
the deposit amount shall be reverted to
the respondents, is set aside.
(c)

We

amount

further
of

declare

compensation

that
of

the

Rs.30

said
lakhs

exclusively belongs to the appellant and

after his demise it must go to the legal
heirs

or

representatives

as

it

is

the

exclusive estate of the appellant as the

it is the compensation awarded to him for
the 100% permanent disability suffered by
him due to electrocution on account of

Page30

31

the

negligence

monthly

of

interest

the
that

respondents.
would

The

be

earned

during the period of his minority

shall

be withdrawn by the appellants guardian

and spend the same towards his monthly
expenses

and

after

he

attains

the

majority, it is open for him either to

continue the deposit or withdraw the same
and appropriate for himself or his legal
heirs or legal representative, if he does
not survive.
(d) The deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs as corpus
amount as directed at sub-para(vi) of the
judgment

of

the

shall

in

the

be

exclusively

learned
name

of

represented

guardians/parents

Single
the

by

till

appellant

his
he

Judge
natural
attains

majority, the income that would be earned

on such deposit amount can be drawn by
the parents

every month to be spent for

personal expenses.
deposit

is

made

The Bank in which the

in

the

name

of

Chief

Engineer shall be deleted and the name of

the

appellant

directed above.

shall

be

entered

as

After attaining the age

of majority, the appellant is at liberty

to withdraw the above said amount also.
If for any reason the appellant does not

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

intact, the same shall be complied with

and the report shall be submitted before
the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is allowed in the above said
terms, but without costs.

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

C.A. No. ...../2014 arising from SLP (C) No(s).8113/2014

RAMAN

Petitioner(s)
VERSUS

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LT.& ORS

Respondent(s)

Date : 17/12/2014 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of

JUDGMENT today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
For Petitioner(s)

Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Dr.

Sushil Kr. Jain, Sr. Adv.

Anisha Jain, Adv.
Nitin Jain, Adv.
(Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Narendera Hooda, Adv.

Mr. Manoj Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the

judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.
Leave granted.
The

appeal

is

allowed

in

terms

of

the

signed

reportable judgment.

(VINOD KR.JHA)
COURT MASTER

(MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)

Page33