RAVI v. BADRINARAYAN AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 2011) FEBRUARY 18, 2011 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND D~EPAK VERMA, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.140 and 166: Motor accident – Compensatiof/ claim – Whether delay
in lodging FIR of the accident can prove fatal so as to result into dismissal of the claim petition filed by the claimant – Held: Although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor
accident claim cases, delay in lodgfrig the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceeC/ings, if claimant is able D to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it – There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed
lodgment of FIR – In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should ($/so be scrutinized more E carefully – If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate
innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground – In the present case, it was amply proved that the F truck owned by respondent no.2 and driven by respondent
no. 1 was involved in the road accident, which had caused injuries to the appellant – No doubt, there was delay in lodging the FIR but the same was explained by the appellant's father – The explanation offered by him was not only satisfactory; it G inspired confidence as cogent and valid reasons were
assigned therein – Further, a consistent stand was taken by appellant's father right from the beginning till the lodging of the F. I. R. – Under the circumstance$, it cannot be said that delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the claim case filed by RAVI v. BADRINARAYAN AND ORS.
the appellant – FIR. Motor accident – Adequate and proper compensation – Appellant, a minor boy aged 8 years, hit by a moving truck – He sustained permanent disability to the extent of 50% and even after several surgeries not able to control his urination – Appellant now aged about 16 years but still prosecuting his studies in class V only – Held: Apparently, on account of
nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, he was unable to prosecute his studies in right earnest and lagged behind in the same – In a case where injury sustained by victim is of c permanent nature, he suffers much more than the person who succumbs to the injury – In the present case, the appellant has to suffer throughout his life; thus the compensation should not only be adequate but proper also – Looking into the nature of injuries suffered by appellant which are permanent in nature, o and in the interest of justice, appellant granted compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs, payable by the respondents, jointly and
severally- Said amount to carry interest@ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till the same is actually paid. Appellant, a minor boy aged 8 years, suffered grievous injuries after being allegedly hit by a truck driven by respondent no.1. The truck in question was owned by
respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. The appellant's father lodged formal FIR almost 3 months after the date of the incident. The appellant filed claim petition (through his father) under ss.140 and 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, which was dismissed, primarily on the ground that formal FIR of the incident was lodged belatedly and that the appellant failed to establish that on the fateful day, the said truck was involved in a motor
road accident causing injuries to him. The order was upheld by the High Court. In the instant appeal, the questions arising for consideration of the Court were: 1) whether delay in
A lodging FIR of the accident pr,ved fatal so as to result into dismissal of the claim petition filed by the appellant and 2) whether the truck drive~ by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.2 wa~ involved in the accident
and if so, to what extent the victim-appellant could be B compensated. Allowing the appeal, the Cpurt HELD:1.1. On the fateful day, the appellant was attending to his call of nature, just in front of his house C when respondent no.1 was rev~rsing a truck. Since there
was no conductor, probably, respondent no.1 was not able to notice that the appellant was sitting on the side of the road, thus while reversing the vehicle rashly and negligently, it hit him from behi'1d. The said accident was D witnessed by AW1, the father 'f the appellant and AW2.
Soon after the accident, both Qf them took the appellant to the hospital for treatment. Thus, they were not in a position to lodge the FIR imme~iately. Even though police had come to the hospital to r~cord FIR but it could not
E be recorded on account of mental agony and stress through which AW 1 was passirg. Obviously at that point of time, he was more concelrned to get the medical treatment for his son rather than lodging FIR. Being a
common man, oblivious of the niceties of law, he did not F deem it necessary to lodge th~ FIR immediately. [Para 5) [408-F-H; 409-A-B] 1.2. Critical perusal of the formal FIR lodged by the
appellant's father shows that ~e had given the exact and vivid description of the ac~ident and the injuries G sustained by his son in the said accident. He further disclosed therein that since 7.~0.2001, his son was time
and again admitted in the Ho!!pital and was undergoing treatment, he could not lodge the FIR immediately. He further mentioned that police 1had come to the Hospital H next day to record the FIR and complete other formalities, RAVI· v. BADRINARAYAN AND ORS.
but everyone present there suggested that since A Respondent no.1 was the neighbour of the appellant, it was not desirable to lodge an FIR and instead the matter of compensation could be sorted out in an amicable
manner amongst themselves. In view of this, FIR was not lodged immediately or soon after the accident. Secondly, B the appellant was still in Hospital undergoing treatment, attending to which was more important for him than
lodging the FIR. Hence, there was delay in lodging the FIR. [Para 11 & 12) [410-E-H; 411-A] 1.3. In response to the notice issued under Section C 133 of M.V. Act, Respondent No.2 categorically admitted
that his vehicle had met with an accident on 7 .10.2001 and he was intimated about the same on phone the very same day. Thus, on this admission, it is clearly made out . that the vehicle in question was involved in the acc!dent, D causing physical injuries to the appellant. On 7.10.2001,
the appellant was admitted in the hospital, his injury report form was also filled up by the attending doctors, which bears the signature of the appellant's father. It is clearly mentioned therein that the cause of injury was E
road transport accident at about 9.00 a.m. on 7.10.2001, near his house. [Paras 13, 14) [411-B-D] 1.4. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is amply proved that the aforesaid truck was involved in
the road accident, which had caused injuries to the appellant. No doubt, it is true that there has been delay in lodging the FIR but the same has already been explained by the appellant's father. The explanation
offered by him is not only satisfactory; it inspires G confidence as cogent and valid reasons have been assigned therein. Not only this, a consistent stand has been taken by the appellant's father right from the
beginning till the lodging of the F.1.R. [Para 16) [411-F-H] 1.5. The cumulative effect of the events clearly H A established that accident had tak~n place on 7.10.2001 at about 8.30 in the morning on account of rash and
negligent reversing of the truck by driver respondent no.1, owned by Respondent No.2. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said th~t delay in lodging the B FIR could have proved fatal to the ~laim case filed by the appellant. The events show th~ bona fides of the
appellant's father. A consistent stand has been taken by him right from the beginning till t~e lodging of the FIR. The chronological events inspire cbnfidence and it does c not smack of a concocted case Which has been filed
against the driver and the Jwner of the vehicle only with an intention to get compensation. [Paras 18, 19) [412-G- H; 413-A-B] 1.6. It is well-settled that delay 1in lodging FIR cannot
D be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, qne cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family
responsibilities occupy the mind or kith and kin to such E an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the !Police Station. Under such circumstances,. they are riot expected to act
mechanically with promptitude in lddging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victiml In cases "f delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence v.1th a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the cont,nts of the FIR should
also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication, or it has not been G concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. [Para
20) [413-C~E] 1.7. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of H cases is primarily to intimate (he police to initiate RAVI v. BADRINARAYAN AND ORS. investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR A
certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging B the same should not be treated as fatal for such
proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain c a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed
to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons. [Para 21] 0
[413-F-H; 414-A-B] 1.8. In the case in hand, the Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court, committed grave error in not appreciating the mental agony through which the appellant's father was passing, whose son was severely E
injured. The Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court committed error in coming to the conclusion that lodging the FIR belatedly would result in dismissal of the claim petition. [Paras 22, 23] [414-C-D]
2.1. Record shows that victim is now aged about 16 years but is still prosecuting his studies in class V only. Apparently, on account of nature of injuries sustained by him, he was unable to prosecute his studies in right
earnest and lagged behind in the same. Medical Board G Certificate issued by Government R.D.B.P. Jaipuria Hospital, Jaipur dated 17.12.2004 shows that he has suffered a number of grievous injuries and was admitted
as many as on four occasions in the hospital. [Para 24] [414-E-F] SUPREME COURT REPORlS 2.2. In a case where injury su~tained by victim is of permanent nature, he suffers much lmore than the person
who succumbs to the injury. In such cases, the injured has to carry on the burden of permanent disability throughout his life, which is certai~ly much more painful B to the victim. In the present cas~, the appellant had
suffered an injury of permanent nature as a result of which he is not able to control his urine. He has to suffer with it throughout his life; thus the compensation should not only be adequate but proper also. ~Para 25] [414-H; 415-
2.3. On account of aforesaid Injury, his permanent physical disability has been assessed at 50%. This report of the experts further shows that ~e is unable to control urine and suffers from continence ~isability which could
D not be cured even after surgical 01peration and frequent dilatation still takes place. He has also been accordingly issued a permanent disability c•rtificate by the said Medical Board. Therefore, the s~id certificate clearly
establishes that Appellant had ~ustained permanent E disability to his own body to the e~tent of 50% and even after several surgeries; he was not able to control his urination. One can well appreci1ate and imagine the
problems and difficulties of a you~g boy aged 16 years, who is not able to control his urination and spoils his ' F clothes even while attending schoQI. This Court has been given to understand that he is required to go with
additional sets of clothings so tha,t he could change the same, in case they are spoiled. Thi~ is the state of affairs even as on date. The genuineness ~nd correctness of the . G aforesaid certificate is not doutJtful. Even otherwise, Respondents have also not ¢ontended that this
certificate is forged or fabricated $nd has been obtained with an intention to get compensat~on. [Paras 26, 27] [415- B-F] 2.4. Looking into the matter from all angles, it is RAVI v. BADRINARAYAN AND ORS.
clearly established that in the said accident, the appellant had suffered severe injuries of permanent nature which have not been cured till date despite several surgeries. Looking into the nature of injuries which are permanent
in nature, this Court is of the opinion that a total amount of Rs. 2,50,000 (Rs. 2.5 Lakhs) to be awarded to the appellant payable by Respondents jointly and severally, would meet the ends of justice. The aforesaid amount
would also carry interest @ 6% p.a. fror,n the date of filing of petition till the same is actually paid. As a result thereof, award of the Claims Tribunal and judgment and order of c
the High Court are hereby set aside and quashed, instead the appellant's claim petition is allowed. [Para 28] [415- G-H; 416-A-B] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.10.2007 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.8. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3927 of 2007. Shobha, Mohinder Pal Thakur, Ridhima Garg for the
Appellant. Pankaj Bala Verma (for Dharma Bir Raj Vohra) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Cruel hands of destiny played havoc with the life of Ravi, then aged 8 years, on account of motor road accident, on
7: 10.2001 at about 8.30 AM, when rear side of true!< bearing Registration No. RJP – 1008, driven by Respondent No. 1 – Badrinarayan, owned by Respondent No. 2 – Prahlad Singh and insured with Respondent No. 3 – M/s. National Insurance
Company Limited, hit the victim, causing multiple injuries to him. SUPREME COURT REPOR-TS [2011J 4 S.C.R. A To add to his miseries, his claim i:>etition filed under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'M.V. Act') before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'MACT'), registered as Claim Petition No. 865 of 2004, came to be dismissed on 19.9.2007 by
B learned Presiding Judge of the said Tribunal, mainly bn the )round that formal FIR of the incidetit was lodged belatedly and Appellant failed to establish that on the fateful day, the said truck was involved in a motor road accident causing injuries to him. 3. An appeal filed before the learned Single Judge of the
C High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur under Section 173 of the M.V. Act also came to be dismissed on 29.10.2007. Thus, all hopes of, at least, 9etting some amount of compensation to mitigate the miseries of the victim so as to lead a respectful and decent life had come to a grinding halt. It D is under these circumstances, he; has preferred the present appeal.
4. The question which arises for our consideration in this Appeal is as to whether delay in loqging the FIR of the accident E could prove fatal so as to result Into dismissal of the Claim Petition filed by the claimant?
5. Facts shorn of unnecessary details are as under:- On 7.10.2001, at about 8.30 AM, Ravi was attending to F his call of nature, just in front of his house. There appears to be a 20' wide kutcha road in fron~ of the said house. At that time, Respondent No. 1, Badrinarayan, was reversing truck
bearing Registration No. RJP – 1008. Since there was no conductor, probably, he was not able to notice that Ravi was G sitting on the side of the road, thu$ while reversing the vehicle rashly and negligently, it hit him from behind. The said accident was witnessed by AW 1 – Suresh Kumar, father of the victim and AW 2, Hari Narayan. Soon after the accident, both of them took Ravi to the hospital for treatment. Thus, they were not in a H position to lodge the FIR immediately. Even though police had e
RAVI v. BADRINARAYAN AND ORS. [DEEPAK VERMA, J.] come to the hospital to record FIR but it could not be recorded on account of mental agony and stress through which AW 1 – Suresh Kumar was passing. Obviously at that point of time, he was more concerned to get the medical treatment for his son rather than lodging FIR. Being a common man, oblivious of the niceties of law, he did not deem it necessary to lodge the FIR immediately. Statements of Hari Narayan, Suresh Kumar, Asif Khan and Ravi were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. On
notice being issued under Section 133 of the M.V. Act, the owner of the vehicle submitted the following reply : "It is submitted that as per the registration I am owner of truck no. RJP- 1008. On 7 .10.2001 and at the time of
the accident, my truck was being driven by the driver Badri Narayan S/o sh. Ram Nath Cast, Brahmin, Age 45 years R/o Purana Ghat, opposite Khaniya Dayal Hospital, Police Station – Transport Nagar, Jaipur. I was informed about
the said accident on phone on the very same day. Sd/- (Prahlad Singh) Dated: 16.3.2002." 6. This admission of Prahlad Singh, owner of the vehicle, amply proves that he was aware of the accident and knew that his truck bearing Registration No. RJP – 1008 had met with accident on 7 .10.01. Even though the aforesaid statement of Respondent No. 2, Prahlad Singh, was recorded on 16.3.2002, but in this statement he has categorically admitted that he was informed about the said accident on phone on the very same day, i.e., on 7.10.01. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant point of time the said truck was being driven by Respondent No. 1, Badrinarayan, a fact also admitted by the owner of the truck.
7. Father of the victim, Suresh Kumar, lodged formal FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC on 26.1.2002, almost after 3 months from the date of the accident, giving details of the said accident.
8. Thereafter, as mentioned h$reinabove, the Appellant, being minor, filed a claim petition through his father, before MACT claiming Rs. 11 lakhs toi be awarded to him as compensation.
9. On notices being issued, Respondent Nos. 1 c.nd 2, driver and owner of the truck resp,ctively, remained absent, despite due service. Thus, they were proceeded ex-parte. Written statement was filed only ~Y Respondent No. 3, the
Insurance Company. But the Respondents did not lead any C evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the Appellant. Even the driver of the truck did not enter the Witness Box to deny the factum of the accident.
10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we have to examine whether the said truck w~s involved in the accident D and if so, to what extent victim Ravi could be compensated. 11. For the accident that had taken place on 7.10.2001 at
8.30 AM, formal FIR was lodged py Appellant's father with Police Station, T.P. Nagar, Jaipur Qn 26.1.2002 at 12.15 PM. E Critical perusal thereof shows that Appellant's father had given the exact and vivid description of th~ accident and the injuries sustained by his son Ravi in the said accident. He has fqrther disclosed therein that since 7.10.2001, his son Ravi was time and again admitted in the Hospital and was undergoing
F treatment, he could not lodge the FIR immediately. 12. He further mentioned that police had come to the Hospital next day to record the f IR and complete other formalities, but everyone present there suggested that since Respondent no.1 was the neighbour of the Appellant, it was not G desirable to lodge an FIR and instead the matter of
compensation could be sorted out in an amicable manner amongst themselves. In view of this, FIR was not lodged immediately or soon after the accident. Secondly, Ravi was still in Hospital undergoing treatment, atlending to which was more RAVI v. BADRINARAYAN AND ORS.
[DEEPAK VERMA, J.] important for him than lodging the FIR. Hence, there was delay in lodging the FIR. 13. It has already been mentioned hereinabove that in response to the notice issued under Section 133 of M.V, Act, Respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle, Prahlad Singh
categorically admitted that his vehicle had met with an accident on 7.10.2001 and he was intimated about the same on phone the very same day. Thus, on this admission, it is clearly made out that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident, causing physical injuries to Ravi.
c 14. On 7.10.2001, Ravi was admitted in the hospital, his injury report form was also filled up by the attending doctors, which bears the signature of Ravi's father Suresh. It is clearly mentioned therein that the cause of injury was road transport accident at about 9.00 a.m. on 7.10.2001, near his house.
Suresh, father of the victim, further declared that at that time he did not want any medical examination relating to police case regarding the injuries caused to his son. 15. When the formal FIR was registered by Suresh on
26.1.2002, a charge-sheet dated 21.03.2002 against Badrinarayan was prepared for commission of offences under Section 279 and 338 of the IPC and it was requested that legal action against accused Badrinarayan be taken. This report was prepared by SHO of the concerned Police Station.
16. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is amply proved that the aforesaid truck was involved in the road accident, which had caused injuries to Ravi. No doubt, it is true that there has been delay in lodging the FIR but the same has already been explained by Suresh. The explanation offered by him is not only satisfactory; it inspires confidence as cogent and valid reasons have been assigned therein. Not only this, a consistent stand has been taken by Suresh right from the
beginning till the lodging of the F.l.R. 17. The reasons for delay are as1 under:- c (i) Ravi was seriously injured, thus it was more important for Suresh to geit him treated first.
(ii) Police had arrived at the hospital, where injury report was prepared in which it was mentioned that injuries were caused on ~ccount of road accident at 9.00 a.m. on 7.10.200t
(iii) The categorical admission made by Prahlad Singh, owner of the truck, that vehicle in question was involved in the accident on 7 .10.2001, when the same was being driven b¥ Badrinarayan and this
information was conveyed ~o him on phone the very same day. (iv) FIR could not be lodge~ immediately as other persons in the locality prfssurised Suresh that it e;ould be sorted out amicably since Badrinarayan,
the driver of the vehicle, was his neighbour. (v) Suresh was not aware of the niceties of law that lodging of FIR was conditiQn precedent before filing the Claim Petition. All these facts find place in the formal FIR which was
F registered on 26.01.2002 at the instance of Suresh: . 18. The cumulative effect of the!aforesaid events clearly established that accident had taken place on 7.10.2001 at about 8.30 in the morning on account of rash and negligent reversing of the truck by driver B'drinarayan, owned by
G Respondent No. 2, Prahlad Singh. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that delay in lodging the FIR could have proved fatal to the claim case filed by Ravi. 19. Narration of the aforesaid events would show the bona
RAVI v. BADRINARAYAN AND ORS. [DEEPAK VERMA, J.] fides of Suresh. As mentioned hereinabove, a consistent stand has been taken right from the beginning till the lodging of the FIR. The chronological events narrated hereinabove inspire confidence and it does not smack of a concocted case which has been filed against the driver and the owner of the vehicle only with an intention to get compensation.
20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt tha claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act
mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to
implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. 21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases
is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for
compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in ·lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such
proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuin& cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. A Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the ~IR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent B reasons.
22. In the case in hand, the Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court, committed grave error in n<!>t appeciating the mental agony through which Suresh was p<11ssing, whose son was
C severely injured. 23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the MACT as well as High Court committed error in coming to the conclusion that lodging the FIR belatedly would result in dismiss~! of the claim petition. 24. Now, the question comes for ponsideraiion as to how
much amount can be awarded to the Appellant. Record shows that victim is now aged about 16 years but is still prosecuting his studies in class V only. Apparently; on account of nature of E injuries sustained by him, he was unable to prosecute his studies in right earnest and lagged behind in the same. Medical Board Certificate issued by Government R.D.B.P. Jaipuria
Hospital, Jaipur dated 17 .12.2004 shdws that he has suffered the following injuries and was admitted as many as on four F occasions in the hospital, intermittently : "Diagnosis: Abdominal Injury with fractured Pelvis
stricture urethra with ruptured urethra couplet transacted urethra (Case No. 020762) llnd Adm. 10.11.2001 to 12.11.2001, lllrd Adm. 27.11.01to12.12.01; IVth Adm. 28.12.01 to 1.1.2002."
25. It is to be noted that in a case where injury sustained by victim is of permanent nature, lie $uffers much more than the person who succumbs to the injury. Ill such cases, the injured H has to carry on the burden of perman¢nt disability throughout RAVI v. BADRINARAYAN AND ORS.
[DEEPAK VERMA, J.] his life, which is certainly much more painful to the victim. In the present case, the Appellant had suffered an injury of permanent nature as a result of which he is not able to control his'urine. He has to suffer with it throughout his life; thus the compensation should not only be adequate but proper also.
26. On account of aforesaid injury, his permanent physical disability has been assessed at 50%. This report of the experts further shows that he is unable to control urine and suffers from continence disability which could not be cured even after
surgical operation and frequent dilatation still takes place. c 27. He has also been accordingly issued a permanent disability certificate by the said Medical Board. Therefore, the said certificate clearly establishes that Appellant had sustained permanent disability to his own body to the extent of 50% and even after several surgeries; he was not able to control his urination. We can well appreciate and imagine the problems and difficulties of a young boy aged 16 years, who is not able to control his urination and spoils his clothes even while attending school. We have been given to understand that he is required to go with additional sets of clothings so that he could change the same, in case they are spoiled. This is the state of affairs even as on date. We do not doubt the genuineness and correctness of the aforesaid certificate. Even otherwise,
Respondents have also not contended that this certificate is forged or fabricated and has been obtained with an intention to get compensation. 28. Thus, looking into the matter from all angles, it is clearly established that in the said accident, Appellant had suffered severe injuries of permanent nature which have not been cured till date despite several surgeries. In our most modest
computation, looking into the nature .bf injuries which are permanent in nature, we are of the opinion that a total amount of Rs. 2,50,000 (Rs. 2.5 Lakhs) to-be awa,rded to the Appellant payable by Respondents jointly and s~erally; would meet the SUPREME COURT REPQRTS
[2011) 4 S.C.R. A ends of justice. The aforesaid amou~t would also carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing pf petition till the same is actually paid. As a result thereof, award of the Claims Tribunal and judgment and order of the High ~ourt; are hereby set aside and quashed, instead the Appellanf s claim petition is allowed B as mentioned above with costs throughout. The appeal is
allowed accordingly. Counsel's fee quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.