Summary
In an injured claimant's appeal for enhanced motor accident compensation, the Supreme Court raised the assessed income, added 40% future prospects under Pranay Sethi, and awarded or increased amounts for future attendant charges, loss of marriage prospects and pain and suffering. It held that the amount claimed in the petition does not cap just compensation, and enhanced the award to Rs. 52,31,000.
Issues
- Whether the courts below correctly took the claimant's income from an income tax return filed nearly three years before the accident.
- Whether the claimant, aged 32 and suffering 100% functional disability, was entitled to future prospects.
- Whether compensation should be awarded or increased for future attendant charges, loss of marriage prospects and pain and suffering.
- Whether compensation can exceed the amount claimed in the claim petition.
Held
- Both courts below ignored the gap of about two years and nine months between the income tax returns relied on and the accident, the rising trend of income in the returns, and the salary certificate showing a monthly salary of Rs. 22,000. The Court took the annual income as Rs. 2,00,000. (¶ 14)
- The multiplier of 16 for a claimant aged 32 was upheld. The High Court's assessment of 100% functional disability was not challenged by the insurer and stood. (¶¶ 14.1, 14.2)
- Applying Pranay Sethi, a claimant aged 32 at the time of the accident is entitled to 40% future prospects, which the Tribunal and High Court had wrongly omitted. (¶ 14.3)
- No further enhancement of past medical expenditure was warranted, since the amount awarded matched the bills produced. (¶ 15)
- Given the claimant's lasting mental disability and his ageing mother being his main caretaker, a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was awarded for future attendant charges; Rs. 1,00,000 was awarded for loss of marriage prospects, for which nothing had been given; and pain and suffering was raised from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The amount claimed is not a ceiling. The Tribunal and the High Court may award more than was claimed if that is just and reasonable, since the court's duty is to assess fair compensation and the claimant's rough calculation is no upper limit (following Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto). (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's award modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 52,31,000 (rounded off), with interest on the enhanced amount at 6% as awarded by the High Court.