Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just compensation – Personal injury cases – Victim (minor) was travelling on a tractor with her parents when it was hit by a truck – She suffered serious injuries resulting in damage to her brain – Disability was assessed as 100% – Disability certificate stated that as per assessment her I.Q. is less than 20% of a child of her age and her social age is only of a 9 month old child – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs.11,08,501/- and held that since there was violation of terms of policy, the insurance company would pay the amount but would be entitled to recover the same from the owner – High Court enhanced it to Rs.25,78,501/- – On appeal, held: Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages – Damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident – Compensation should neither be assessed very conservatively, nor assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant – Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation – Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation – Rs.62,27,000/- is awarded to the claimant, inter alia under expenses relating to treatment; hospitalization and transportation; loss of earnings (family members); loss of future earnings; pain, suffering & loss of amenities etc., with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment of the amount – Insurance company entitled to adjust the amount already paid and to recover the amount from the owner in terms of the award of MACT, which was not challenged either before High Court or Supreme Court – Amount awarded is more than the amount claimed – In motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Minor Claimant – Compensation – Guidelines for investment of – Discussed.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Grant of interest – Held: Normally interest should be granted from the date of filing of the petition and if in appeal enhancement is made the interest should again be from the date of filing of the petition– Only if the appeal is filed after an inordinate delay by the claimants, or the decision of the case has been delayed on account of negligence of the claimant, in such exceptional cases the interest may be awarded from a later date – While doing so, the tribunals/High Courts must give reasons why interest is not being paid from the date of filing of the petition.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation etc.
Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. Damages can be pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary, but all have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages. [Paras 5, 6][629-D-H]
1.2 Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation etc. There is no dispute with regard to the long period of treatment and hospitalisation of this young girl. Limiting the amount only to the bills which have been paid in the name of the claimant only, would not be reasonable. Therefore, the amount payable for actual medical expenses is increased from Rs.1,38,501/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. The amount awarded for transportation at Rs.50,000/- is reasonable. Therefore, under this head Rs.2,50,000/- is awarded. [Para 19][634-E, G]
1.3 Loss of earnings
The appellant placed material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs.4846/- per month. This would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs.6784.40/- per month, i.e., 81,412.80 per annum. Applying the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs.14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs.14,66,000/-. Further, in the hospital the claimant would have had at least two attendants, and taking the cost of each at Rs.500/- per day for 51 days, Rs.51,000/- is awarded to her. [Paras 20, 21][635-B-C, F]
1.3 Attendant Charges
The cost of one attendant is assessed at Rs.5,000/- and she will require two attendants which works out to Rs.10,000/per month, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, and using the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs.21,60,000/- for attendant charges for her entire life. [Para 25][637-D]
1.4 Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities
The courts or the tribunals assessing the compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding compensation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case even after taking a very conservative view of the matter an amount payable for the pain and suffering of this child should be at least Rs.15,00,000/. [Paras 26, 27][638-A, D]
1.4 Loss of marriage prospects
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of marriage prospects. No reason to interfere with this finding. [Paras 28] [638-E]
1.5 Future medical treatment
Keeping in view her young age and assuming she would live another 50-60 years, it would not be unjust to award her Rs.5,00,000/- for future medical expenses. [Paras 29][638-G]
1.6 How the compensation should be invested? The tribunal while awarding the compensation stated that the amount payable to the share of the minor victim would be kept in a Fixed Deposit till she attains the age of 18 years. The High Court while enhancing the amount of compensation directed that the enhanced amount be paid to the appellant within 45 days. This is totally contrary to the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. These guidelines protect the rights of the minors, claimants who are under some disability and also widows and illiterate person who may be deprived of the compensation paid to them in lump sum by unscrupulous elements. These victims may not be able to invest their monies properly and in such cases the MACT as well the High courts must ensure that investments are made in nationalised banks to get a high rate of interest. The interest in most cases is sufficient to cover the monthly expenses. In special cases, for reasons to be given in writing, the MACT or the trial court may release such amount as is required. These guidelines are reiterated and it is directed that they should be followed by all the tribunals and High Courts to ensure that the money of the victims is not frittered away. [Para 30][638-H; 639-A; 640-D-F]
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176 – relied on.
1.7 Interest
Normally interest should be granted from the date of filing of the petition and if in appeal enhancement is made the interest should again be from the date of filing of the petition. It is only if the appeal is filed after an inordinate delay by the claimants, or the decision of the case has been delayed on account of negligence of the claimant, in such exceptional cases the interest may be awarded from a later date. However, while doing so, the tribunals/High Courts must give reasons why interest is not being paid from the date of filing of the petition. Therefore, the entire amount of compensation including the amount enhanced by Supreme Court shall carry an interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount. [Para 31][641-B-C]
1.8 Relief
Rs.62,27,000/- is awarded to the claimant. This amount shall carry an interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount. The insurance company shall be entitled to adjust the amount already paid. Further, the insurance company shall also be entitled to recover the amount from the owner in terms of the award of the MACT, which has not been challenged either before the High Court or us. The amount awarded is more than the amount claimed. However, in motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor. [Paras 32, 33][641-D, G-H; 642-A] M/s Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi and others 1980 ACJ 55 (SC); R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 : [1995] 1 SCR 75; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Others (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179; K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (2012)
12 SCC 274 : [2012] 11 SCR 414 – relied on.
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami AIR 1962 SC 1 : [1962] SCR 929; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati and Ors., 1966 ACJ 57; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 362 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 443; Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul Dande and Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 351; Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. 2013 (10) SCALE 668 – referred to.
Phillips v. Western Railway Co. (1874) 4 QBD 406; Mediana [1900] AC 113; H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1963 2 WLR 1359; Ward v. James (1965) 1 All ER 563; Taylor v. O’Connor 1971 AC 115 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.