Awarding ‘just compensation’ is called for to make genuine attempt to help restore self-dignity of severely impaired claimant under MV Act, says Apex Court

feature-top

Read Judgment: Jithendran vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, October 29, 2021: While allowing the appeal for enhancement of compensation, the Supreme Court has emphasized that while the money awarded by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured victim (who is deprived of the normal amenities of life and suffers the unease of being a burden on others), the courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding ‘just compensation’.

A Division Bench of Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy therefore observed that the Tribunal and the Courts must be conscious of the fact that the permanent disability suffered by the individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities but there are multiple other non-quantifiable implications for the victim. 

The present appeal arose out of a motor accident claim following the serious injuries suffered by Jithendran (appellant) when the motor cycle (where the appellant was riding pillion), was hit by a car. Both riders were impacted, resulting in severe head injuries to the appellant. He was bedridden, totally immobilized and initially, remained admitted in the hospital for 191 days. 

The appellant also suffered severe impairment of cognitive power with hemiparesis and total aphasia and the prognosis for him has been 69% permanent disability. 

The claim was analogously considered with other claimants from the same accident, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), wherein the Presiding Officer noticed that the severely impaired pillion rider was 21 years old and was earning around Rs.4,500 per month from jewellery work when he suffered the accident. 

Considering the impairment and applying the multiplier of 17, the MACT determined the payable compensation for the pillion rider at Rs.5,74,320.On appeal, the Kerala High Court quantified a higher sum of Rs.9,38,952 as compensation. 

After considering the submissions, the Apex Court said that the very fact that a healthy person turns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship, and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss of self-dignity. 

Such a Claimant must not be viewed as a modern day Oliver Twist, having to make entreaties as the boy in the orphanage in Charles Dickens’s classic, “Please Sir, I want some more”, added the Court. 

At the same time, the Top Court opined that the efforts must be to substantially ameliorate the misery of the claimant and recognize his actual needs by accounting for the ground realities. 

The impact on the earning capacity for the claimant by virtue of his 69% disability must not be measured as a proportionate loss of his earning capacity. The earning life for the appellant is over and as such his income loss has to be quantified as 100%. There is no other way to assess the earning loss since the appellant is incapacitated for life and is confined to home. In such circumstances, his loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100%.As his monthly income was Rs.4,500/-, adding 40% future prospect thereto, the monthly loss of earning is quantified as Rs.6,300/-”, observed the Apex Court. 

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Roy observed that the Courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant.

In cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant is suffering severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the Courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’s loss of earning capacity is concerned, added Justice Roy. 

The plea of the victim suffering from a cruel twist of fate, when asking for some more, is not extravagant but is for seeking appropriate recompense to negotiate with the unforeseeable and the fortuitous twists is his impaired life, highlighted the Top Court. 

Add a Comment