Summary
A two-year-old girl was gravely injured in 1998 when a rashly driven car hit the autorickshaw she was in. The Tribunal dismissed her claim on a technical ground; the Madras High Court had a Medical Board assess her near-total disability and awarded Rs 13.34 lakh. The Supreme Court enhanced compensation on the principles in Raj Kumar and Kajal. For victims up to 15 years the multiplier is 15, following Reshma Kumari as approved in Pranay Sethi, not 18. Lifelong care by two attendants at Rs 10,000 a month warranted Rs 18 lakh. Pain, suffering and loss of amenities were raised to Rs 6 lakh for disability above 90%, Rs 3 lakh was added for loss of marriage prospects, and future medical and diet expenses were increased. The total enhancement was Rs 24.90 lakh, partly to be kept in a protected fixed deposit.
Issues
- What is just compensation for a child left with near-total permanent disability by a motor accident, and under which heads.
- What multiplier applies to a claimant aged up to 15 years when computing lump-sum compensation.
Provisions considered
- Sections 166 and 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Just compensation for serious personal injury was re-assessed under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads identified in Raj Kumar and applied in Kajal. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- Second Schedule, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988For victims up to 15 years, the multiplier of 15 under the Second Schedule, as corrected in Sarla Verma, applies as held in Reshma Kumari. (¶¶ 10.1.1, 10.1.3, 10.1.4)
- Section 2(ii), Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986The statutory bar on employing children supports a lower multiplier for victims up to 15 years. (¶ 10.1.4)
Held
- Compensation for personal injury is awarded once and for all and must be full and fair; in serious cases with medical evidence, loss of future earnings, future medical expenses, loss of amenities and marriage prospects are compensable. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- Pranay Sethi treated Rajesh as non-binding and approved the formula in Reshma Kumari; the multiplier for victims up to 15 years is therefore 15, not 18 as applied in Kajal and Abhimanyu Pratap Singh. (¶¶ 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.1.4)
- Lifelong attendant charges are to be computed by the multiplier method; for two attendants at Rs 10,000 per month the award is Rs 18 lakh, and for disability above 90% pain, suffering and loss of amenities should total at least Rs 6 lakh. (¶ 10)
- Rs 3 lakh for loss of marriage prospects and additional sums for future treatment and special diet were awarded; the enhanced amount carries 7.5% interest, with part to be kept in a protected fixed deposit under the Susamma Thomas guidelines and the claimant to pay court fee on the amount exceeding her claim. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 15)
Result
Appeal disposed of; compensation enhanced by Rs 24,90,000 with 7.5% interest from the High Court's judgment, payable by the insurer within three months, Rs 15 lakh to be held in a fixed deposit for the appellant's care; no costs.