Supreme Court enhances compensation to Rs. 50.8 Lakhs for mental and physical disabilities suffered by minor in Motor Vehicle Accident

Supreme Court: In an appeal seeking the enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident, the Division Bench of BR Gavai* and KV Viswanathan, JJ. set aside the impugned order and enhanced the total compensation to 50,87,000/ to the claimant, a young girl who was only 7 years old at the time of the accident and had suffered both mental and physical disabilities because of the incident.

Background

On 02-06-2009, the appellant, a seven-year-old child, was walking with her mother and brother towards their home. As they reached the red-light intersection and began crossing the road at the zebra crossing, a car, driven at a high speed, struck the appellant. The collision resulted in grievous injuries to the child. The appellant, through her father, filed a claim petition for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’), before the Tribunal against the driver-cum owner of the offending vehicle and United India Insurance Company Limited.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) had by a judgment and order awarded compensation of Rs. 5,90,750/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

Thereafter, the appellant approached the High Court seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded on account of injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The Single Judge of the High Court, vide impugned judgment and order, disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant seeking enhancement by granting a further amount of Rs. 5,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached this Court.

Analysis and Decision

Loss of income/earning capacity

The Court noted that the Doctor proved the disability certificate. As per the said certificate, the appellant has suffered 75% disability. The appellant is suffering from moderate mental retardation. It was stated by the Doctor that the appellant would only be able to learn skills up-to the level of a child of 2nd Standard/Class. The appellant also has severe apathy and no control over passage of her urine.

The Court said that even though the Doctor on assessment of the appellant opined that the disability suffered by the appellant is 75%, however, on a complete overview of the situation, the disability of the appellant should be treated to be 100%.

The Court noted that the Tribunal on appreciation of the medical evidence came to a conclusion that, since the appellant was only seven years at the time of the accident, it would be appropriate to take notional income as per the MV Act to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 which was taken up to the age of fifteen years. Therefore, an amount of 15,000/- x 15 x 75/100 = Rs. 1,68,750/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The High Court did not enhance the amount awarded under this head.

The Court relied on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, and Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 7 SCC 738, wherein it was held that taking notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the State concerned has to be taken into consideration because, that would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major.

Thus, the Court concluded that to arrive at the compensation to be awarded under the head of loss of income and earnings due to disability, 40% should be added for prospects and a multiplier of 18 would have to be applied in view of the age of the appellant.

Therefore, the Court held that, in the present case, the compensation under this head would be Rs. [4,358 + (40% of 4,358)] x 12 x 18 = Rs.13,17,859/- and rounded it off to Rs. 13,18,000/-.

Pain and Suffering

The Court noted that in the present case the appellant will remain dependent on another person for the rest of her life. Even though the physical age will increase, her mental age will be that of a child studying in the 2nd Standard. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby.

The Court said that similar to the case of Kajal (supra), the appellant will also miss out on partaking in activities which she would have normally done, if she had not met with this unfortunate accident.

Noting that the High Court, vide impugned judgment and order, only enhanced the compensation under the head of pain and suffering from Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.1,00,000/-., the Court said that the same is not commensurate to the impact the unfortunate accident had and will have on the appellant as well as her family members for the rest of their lives.

The Court viewed that the compensation should be enhanced further and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the present appellant under the head of pain and suffering.

Loss of marriage prospects

The Court reiterated the evidence given by the doctor vide the disability certificate wherein she has opined that the mental status of the appellant would be the same as that of a child studying in the 2nd Standard/Class. Further, it was stated that the appellant would also have severe apathy and therefore, maintaining/forming marital/familial bonds with the aforementioned conditions for the appellant is very difficult.

The Court said that the appellant, therefore, has not only lost her childhood but also her adult life.

Remarking that marriage/companionship is an integral part of the natural life of a human being, the Court noted that the though the appellant is capable of reproduction, it is near impossible for her to rear children and enjoy the simple pleasures of marital life and companionship. However, the Tribunal in the present case did not award any compensation to the appellant under this head and the High Court, in appeal, without appreciating the impact of the non-pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant only awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the loss of marriage prospects.

Therefore, the Court opined that this is a fit case where the compensation awarded under the head of loss marriage prospects by the High Court is inadequate and the same must be enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/-

Attendant Charges

The Court noted that the High Court observed that owing to the condition to which the appellant has been reduced, she would require the services of an attendant, though part-time. Thus, it adopted the minimum wages of an unskilled worker in Delhi at the time of the accident being Rs. 3,934/-, for a part time attendant, and applied the multiplier of 18. Considering the same, the High Court computed attendant charges to be awarded as Rs. (3,934/- ÷ 2) x 12 x 18 = Rs. 4,24,872/- and rounded it off to Rs. 4,25,000/-.

The Court opined that the approach of the High Court on appreciation of the evidence that the appellant would only be requiring a part time attendant is erroneous. On the contrary, the appellant would be dependent on an attendant throughout her life and on a full-time basis. Considering her medical situation, the attendant would have to be skilled and not unskilled. The appellant would be requiring special care and attention which can only be provided by a skilled attendant. It was, therefore, incorrect on the part of the High Court to proceed on the basis that the appellant could be taken care of by an unskilled attendant and that too on a part-time basis.

Therefore, relying on Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush (supra), the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.9,42,000/-, under this head.

Future Medical Treatment

The Court noted that the appellant would be requiring medical assistance in the form of medicines, diapers, etc., so as to live a relatively comfortable life. Thus, the family of the appellant must be financially equipped to deal with the medical conditions, current and potential. Therefore, the Court enhanced the compensation to be awarded under this head to Rs.5,00,000/-.

The Court, while enhancing the total compensation to 50,87,000/, upheld the enhanced rate of interest by the High Court from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the actual realisation. Further, it directed the Insurance Company to disburse the compensation awarded to the appellant as above.

The Court directed that at present an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- should be disbursed to the father of the appellant as her guardian. It was further directed that the rest of the amount be invested in one or more Fixed Deposits Receipts so as to attract the maximum rate of interest. The interest amount was directed to be payable to the guardian of the appellant every month.

The Court permitted the guardian to seek orders from the Tribunal for withdrawal of the amount on the basis of medical opinion, if any major medical expenses are required to be incurred.