Motor Vehicles – Compensation – Appellant met with accident as a five year old boy in 2010 – He suffered injuries and became a paraplegic patient – Appellant not able to move his both legs and having complete sensory loss in the legs, urinary incontinence and bowel constipation and bed sore – Rs. 18,24,000/- awarded as compensation by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – High Court reduced compensation to Rs.13,46,805/- – On appeal, held: In terms of the State Notification, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as on the date of the accident was about Rs.3700/- – Compensation, therefore, was to be assessed on the basis of the said minimum wages on the assumption that appellant would have been able to earn after attaining majority – In addition to skilled minimum wages, appellant would be also entitled to 40% for future prospects – Total compensation would be Rs.49,93,000/- (comprising of Rs.11,18,880/- towards loss of future earnings due to permanent disability for life; Rs.5,74,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,00,000/- towards future medical expenses; Rs.10,00,000/towards pain, suffering and loss of amenities; Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects, Rs.8,00,000/- towards one attendant charges and Rs.2,00,000/- towards conveyance charges) along with interest already awarded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court i.e. 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till realization.
Motor Vehicles – Compensation – Just Compensation – Determination of damages in personal injury cases – Held: Is not easy – Mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by payment of just compensation.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. In the present appeal, the minimum wages for 2010-11 in the State for employments not covered under any of the scheduled employments can be ascertained from the notification for minimum wages published in the Gazette on 19.02.2007. Hence, as per the same, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in 2010-11 is to the tune of Rs. 3708.70. In this view, the minimum wages as on the date of accident is rounded off to Rs.3700/-. The compensation, therefore, is to be assessed on the basis of the said minimum wages on the assumption that the appellant would have been able to earn after attaining majority. In addition to the skilled minimum wages, the appellant would be also entitled to 40% for future prospects. Thus, the compensation works out to be Rs.3700/- plus 40%, which amounts to Rs. 5180/- per month. The multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of the age of the appellant. The loss of future earnings due to the Permanent Disability for life thus works out to be Rs.11,18,880/-, i.e., (3700+1480=5180) x 12 x 18. [Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10][838-F; 839-C-F]
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others (2020) 4 SCC 413 – distinguished.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680: [2017] 13 SCR 100 –
relied on.
2. The determination of damages in personal injury cases is not easy. The mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by payment of just compensation. Therefore, in view of the physical condition, the appellant is entitled to one attendant for the rest of his life though he may be able to walk with the help of assistant device. The device also requires to be replaced every 5 years. Therefore, it is reasonable to award cost of 2 devices i.e., Rs.10 lakhs. The appellant has not only lost his childhood but also adult life. Therefore, loss of marriage prospects would also be required to be awarded. The Tribunal had rejected the claim of taxi expenses for the reason that the taxi driver has not been produced. It is impossible to produce the numerous taxi drivers. Still further, the Tribunal should have realized the condition of the child who had complete sensory loss in the legs. Therefore, if the parents of the child have taken him in a taxi, probably that was the only option available to them. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs is awarded as conveyance charges. [Para 12][840-A-D]
3. No compensation is warranted to be payable under the heading “food and nourishment or towards loss of childhood” as it stands subsumed in the compensation assessed under the other different heads. In view of the judgment in Kajal and other principles of determination of compensation, the total compensation comes out to be Rs. 49,93,000/- (comprising of Rs.11,18,880 towards loss of future earnings due to permanent disability for life; Rs.5,74,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,00,000/- towards future medical expenses i.e. towards purchase of two assistant devices for walking; Rs.10,00,000/towards pain, suffering and loss of amenities; Rs.3,00,000/towards loss of marriage prospects, Rs.8,00,000/- towards one attendant charges and Rs.2,00,000/- towards conveyance charges) along with interest already awarded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court i.e. 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till realization. [Paras 13, 14][840-D-H; 841-A-B]
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 413 – relied on.
4. Since the appellant is a minor, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- would be disbursed to the father of the appellant as his guardian. If however, an amount more than Rs.10,00,000/- has already been disbursed, the said amount shall not be adjusted. The rest of the amount would be invested in one or more Fixed Deposits Receipts so as to attract the maximum rate of interest. The interest amount shall be payable to the guardian of the appellant every month. It shall be open to the guardian, during the minority of the appellant, to seek orders for withdrawal of the amount on the basis of medical opinion, if any major medical expenses are required to be incurred. [Para 15][841-B-D] General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and
Others (1994) 2 SCC 176 – relied on.
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.