Summary
In a motor accident claim by a 37-year-old permanently employed claimant left with 100% functional disability (quadriplegia after cervical spine injuries), the Supreme Court enhanced compensation by applying 50% future prospects under Pranay Sethi instead of 40%, and by raising the award for pain and suffering to Rs.15,00,000, explaining that such non-pecuniary loss resists formulaic computation but must reflect the claimant's lifelong deprivation.
Issues
- Whether future prospects for a claimant in permanent employment and below 40 years should be added at 50% rather than the 40% applied by the High Court.
- Whether the compensation under the head 'pain and suffering' was adequate for a claimant with 100% functional disability, and how such non-pecuniary damages are to be assessed.
Held
- Just compensation rests on restitutio ad integrum, restoring the injured as far as possible to the position before the accident, though money only alleviates and cannot restore what is lost; non-pecuniary damages do not lend themselves to formulaic calculation. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- Applying para 59.3 of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, a claimant in permanent employment below 40 years is entitled to an addition of 50% towards future prospects; on the High Court's monthly income of Rs.27,867, the loss of future income at 100% disability with a multiplier of 15 came to Rs.75,24,000 instead of Rs.70,22,520. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The finding of both the Tribunal and the High Court that the claimant's disability was 100% was not disturbed, given medical evidence of loss of sensation below C-7, loss of bladder and bowel control and dependence on others for all daily activities. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Drawing on lexical, medical, philosophical and comparative sources, the Court observed that pain and suffering covers physical distress and mental and emotional trauma, at whose core is a lasting sense that something is irreparably wrong with one's life; this was present here for the rest of the claimant's life. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 13.7)
- In fixing pain and suffering, the claimant's age, the unusual deprivation suffered and its effect on future life must be considered (R.D. Hattangadi; Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty; Kajal v. Jagdish Chand; Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance). On this basis Rs.15,00,000 was awarded, more than the Rs.10,00,000 the claimant had sought, as just, fair and reasonable. (¶¶ 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 15)
- The award was modified only under future prospects and pain and suffering; the enhanced amount carries interest at 6% from the date of filing the special leave petition. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's award enhanced on two heads (future prospects at 50% and pain and suffering at Rs.15,00,000), the enhanced amount carrying 6% interest from the date of filing of the SLP; no costs.