Gujarat High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’), against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) wherein compensation of Rs 2,25,000 with 9 percent interest from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation was granted for the injury of paraplegia sustained by the minor victim, a Single Judge Bench of J. C. Doshi, J., partly allowed the appeal by granting Rs 13,09,240 as compensation and holding that the minor had become paraplegic and his life had become miserable since the functional disability was 100 per cent.
Background
On 11-12-2000, i.e. the day of the incident, the minor, aged 4-5 years, and his father were riding a motorcycle at a reasonable speed according to traffic rules. A mini truck matador, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the wrong side and crashed with the motorcycle, due to which his father died, and he suffered serious injuries over his skull and body. As a result, the upper limbs of his body were paralyzed, which left him 50 percent permanently disabled. Thus, a claim for compensation of Rs 15 lakhs, on his behalf, before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal granted Rs 2,25,000 with 9 per cent interest from the date of filing the claim petition till realization as compensation. Aggrieved, the present appeal was filed on behalf of the minor.
Analysis
The Court noted that the Tribunal accepted the physical impairment as 50 percent functional disability for computation of the compensation. The Court stated that it appeared that the Tribunal failed to understand that the paralysis rendered the minor deadwood at a nascent age. Though he could breathe and survive, his normal life turned into misery and melancholy. Therefore, the 50% physical disability was 100% functional disability. The Court remarked that the minor became useless and incapable of doing any work for his whole life, and therefore, the Tribunal erred in adopting 50 as the percentage of disability for computing loss of future earnings. In this regard, the Court relied on Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692 and Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 738.
The Court also noted that instead of taking Rs 2,100 per month, which was the minimum wage at the time of the accident, the Tribunal computed Rs 15,000 as yearly income. Noting this, the Court took Rs 2,100 per month as income of the minor. Further, for non-pecuniary heads, the Court remarked that the Tribunal granted the amount so miserly that it required to be enhanced.
Considering that the minor became paraplegic, the Court granted compensation of Rs 3 Lakhs under the head of pain, shock, and suffering. Since the minor had also lost the prospect of marriage, the Court awarded Rs 2 Lakhs under that head. Further, due to the minor becoming paraplegic, the Court noted that he would require an attendant for doing routine activities, for which the Court granted Rs. 18,000 per annum. The multiplier of 18, which was adopted for the minor, was also applied for computing attendant charges towards actual loss of income.
The Court remarked that the minor, who was five years old, lost everything, and no Court could put him back in his original position. The Court said,
“If just, adequate, and fair compensation is granted to the minor, it may alleviate and soothe his/her suffering, and at the same time, it also senses even to the tortfeasor to see that he had amply atoned for his misadventure. The extremely difficult task is to assess the damage caused not only to the body of the minor but to the mind as well.”
Therefore, the Court held that the minor was entitled to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.13,09,240 with 9 percent interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation. The Court stated that there was no bar in granting compensation more than what was claimed, as it was the statutory duty of the Tribunal to assess and grant just, fair, and adequate compensation.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within six weeks.
[Vicky Dineshbhai (Minor) v. Balvandsingh Hanubha Rana, First Appeal No. 2866 of 2012, decided on 06-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Amrita Ajmera
For the defendants: Palak H Thakkar
