Lawyer suffered 100% Disability in Road Accident, SC doubles Compensation Awarded by HC,

  

Read Judgment

Observing that a proficient advocate must be physically fit as he is required to move frequently to fulfill professional commitments, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded to a Lawyer who suffered an accident.

The Division Bench comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice JK Maheshwari was adjudicating upon an appeal against High Court order whereby the said appeal was partly allowed and the compensation granted to the tune of ₹9,00,000/- by the MACT.

Brief Facts of the Case

The claimant had filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 asking compensation to the tune of ₹2 crores in various heads on account of permanent disability caused to him arising out of a road accident. 

At the time of accident, claimant was five and half years of age and a student of UKG, suffered multiple injuries like cerebral edema/brain edema, fracture right part of temporal bone, spinal cord, lower limbs, due to which he was having loss of speech, convulsions, injuries on face. The lower limb of claimant was completely paralysed resulted into 100% disability, his hope to live blissful life was lost due to those injuries.

The MACT while deciding the claim petition recorded the finding of joint and several liability and the claimant has suffered 100% disability. The Tribunal calculated the compensation applying the multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs.1,92,000/- in the head of attendant charges @ Rs.1,000/per month, for physiotherapy Rs.2,88,000/- @ Rs.50 per day, Rs.15,000/- has been awarded in transportation charges, and Rs.5,000/- for use of diapers in future. The Tribunal granted Rs.4,00,000/- in the head of loss of expectations of life, loss of marital bliss, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life, permanent disability, pain and sufferings, thus awarded total sum of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

The appellant assailed the adequacy of the compensation. The High Court partly allowed it but the appellant remained dissatisfied.

The adequacy of the grant of compensation as allowed was challenged in the head of future loss of earning suffered due to permanent disability for the whole life. It was urged, the loss of future earnings granted by the High Court @ Rs. 60,000/- p.a. for 10 years only but on account of the disability caused, the earning of claimant shall affect him for whole life, that too cannot be comparable to an advocate doing profession having normal capacity. The attendant charged @ Rs.3,500/- per month granted by the High Court only for 20 years though the appellant required attendant all the time, during lifetime. On account of loss of senses, he is required to use diapers for whole life. In the head of future treatment, medical expenses including physiotherapy, the amount as awarded is inadequate. He is required to purchase motorized wheel chair, time to time during his life. In the head of pain and sufferings, loss of marital bliss, loss of amenities of life, the agony which he shall face before the society for whole life the adequate amount of compensation has not been granted, however enhancement of compensation is prayed. Reliance was placed on  KAJAL vs. JAGDISH CHAND, 2020 Latest Caselaw 114 SC

The Counsel for the Insurance Company justified the compensation and placed reliance on Jagadish vs. Mohan and Others, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 Latest Caselaw 767 SC

Supreme Court's Observation

After examining the severe medical comdition of the appellant, the Court at the outset noted that by making the payment of compensation for damages would not revive the claimant into his original position but compensation towards wrongful act in terms of money though cannot be decided by the Court but it may be determined as per the recognized principles. It referred to rulings in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 Latest Caselaw 18 SC to specify why the compensation be paid, what should be the basis for determination and what may be the reason for awarding such compensation, applying the uniform methodology for determination of compensation, comparable to the injuries, thereby a person can lead his life, though his physical frame cannot be reversed.

In tune with the principles laid down in KAJAL (supra), the Court opined that the Tribunal while granting the compensation of future loss as well as earning only for 10 years and attendant charges only for 20 years was not justified. It made referrence to Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp.& ANR., 2009 Latest Caselaw 381 SC,  National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 Latest Caselaw 767 SC

"In view of the said legal position, the compensation can be assessed in pecuniary heads i.e. the loss of future earning, medical expenses including future medical expenses, attendant charges and also in the head of transportation including future transportation. In the non-pecuniary heads, the compensation can be computed for the mental and physical pain and sufferings present and in future, loss of amenities of life including loss of marital bliss, loss of expectancy in life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, mental agony in life etc."

The Court took note of the fact that for a proficient advocate the person must be physically fit as he is required to move frequently to attend the professional work reaching from one Court to other, and for movements to complete other professional commitments. The 100 % permanent disability will result in bodily movements being hampered which will make the capacity of the claimant being an advocate cannot be equated with other practicing advocate having no  deformity in the same profession., it added.



Noting that claimant is required to make extraordinary efforts to attend the proceedings in the Court and to come up to the expectations of the client, the Court was dissatisfied with the future loss of earning calculated by the High Court only for 10 years.

The Court accordingly doubled the compensation. 

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure