Motor Vehicle – Accident – Claim – Assessment of compensation – Permanent Disability Percentage – Appellant was travelling in a bus which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent – Bus met with an accident and the appellant received grave injuries – The MACT (Tribunal) by holding that it was the rash and negligent driving that caused the accident, awarded a compensation of 15,76,465/- – High Court modified and enhanced the compensation to 16,70,932/- – High Court assessed the appellant’s functional disability as 35% – On appeal, held: As per the disability certificate, the appellant suffered 70% disability – The functional disability of the appellant will severely impact his earning capacity – The 35% functional disability calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case and the loss of future earning capacity of appellant must be calculated at 60% – It is a well settled position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects – Considering the nature of the permanent disability caused by the accident and the effect it will have on the appellant’s life, the compensation provided by the High Court for non- pecuniary heads is inadequate – In case of permanent disability, the courts must look case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic background of the claimants.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Appellant herein has suffered permanent disability of 70% and has an amputated right lower limb amongst other injuries. The High Court has wrongly taken the view that the Appellant has only suffered 35% functional disability. The Appellant is not a salaried person but is self-employed who manages his business. For the Appellant to be able to augment his income, he is most definitely required to move around. The Appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility further. This proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35% functional disability calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case and in this Courts’ view the loss of future earning capacity must be calculated at 60%. [Para 16][436E-F] FUTURE PROSPECTS
2. It is a well settled position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that “just compensation” must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident took place. The accident that caused the injury took place on 12.06.2009. The acknowledgement of both the Income Tax Returns produced by the Appellant show that Tax Returns were till 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009. Both the Income Tax Returns produced as proof of income were from before the accident took place, and hence the High Court’s finding that the income of the Appellant has increased after the disability is incorrect. It is also to be noted that even if the income of the Appellant had increased after the accident, it would not be enough grounds to disable the Appellant from claiming compensation for future prospect as the rise in income may be attributed to multiple other factors. [Paras 18-20][437-A-D]
COMPENSATION FOR THE PURCHASE AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE PROSTHETIC LEG
3. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years. TheAppellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.
opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-. [Para 23][438C-E]
NON-PECUNIARY COMPENSATION
3. The High Court has upheld the compensation awarded by the Ld. Tribunal for non-pecuniary damages, which comes to Rs. 3,00,000/- in total. Considering the nature of the permanent disability caused by the accident and the effect it will have on the Appellant’s life, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation provided by the High Court for non- pecuniary heads is inadequate. [Para 24][438-E-F]
CONCLUSION
4. While awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability caused to claimants, the courts must look at the case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic background of the claimants. The Appellant herein comes from an economically weaker section of the society. It is almost universally seen that persons from marginalized backgrounds often face an additional layer of discrimination due to bodily disabilities. This is because persons from marginalized sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination. In such circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice, it becomes the duty of the Court to at the very least restore the claimant as best as possible to the position he was in before the occurrence of the disability, and to do so must award compensation in a liberal manner. While no material compensation can completely negate the trauma and suffering that the injured and his family faces, the law only knows the language of monetary compensation in such cases. It then becomes to duty of the court to translate the provisions of monetary compensation into a fabrication that helps the injured and his family in coping with their loss. [Paras 27-29][439-F-H; 440-A-B]
Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and Anr. (2017) 3 SCC
351 : 2017 (2) JT 68; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179; Anant son of Sidheshwar Dukre Vs. Pratap son of
Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 8420 of 2018 – relied on.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100; R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd (1995)
1 SCC 551 : [1995] 1 SCR 75 – 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.