Summary
In a motor accident claim by a child who was 8 years old when injured and left with 90% permanent disability, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.8,65,000 to Rs.35,90,489, holding that a minor's loss of income must be computed on the minimum wages of a skilled worker in the State at the relevant time, and directed that where income is not proved the insurer must place the applicable minimum wage before the Tribunal.
Issues
- Whether the Tribunal and the High Court erred in awarding no compensation for loss of income to a minor claimant who suffered permanent disability in a motor accident.
- What notional income is to be adopted for a child injured in a motor accident, and whether the assessment of 90% permanent functional disability was correct.
- Whether compensation under the other pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads required enhancement.
Provisions considered
- Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The claim petition by the minor through his father was filed under this provision; the Court recomputed the just compensation payable on the claim after finding that the courts below had ignored the child's notional income. (¶¶ 3, 9, 13)
Held
- A minor child who dies or suffers permanent disability in a motor accident cannot be treated as a non-earning person merely because the child was not in gainful employment; loss of income must be computed by adopting, at the least, the minimum wages notified for a skilled workman in the State where the cause of action arose for the relevant period. (¶¶ 9, 15)
- For an accident in Gujarat in 2012 the skilled minimum wage of Rs.227.85 per day was adopted, giving a notional income of Rs.6,836 per month; with 40% future prospects, multiplier of 18 and 90% permanent functional disability, loss of future earnings came to Rs.18,60,489. (¶¶ 10, 11, 13)
- The High Court's assessment of permanent functional disability at 90%, based on the disability certificate and medical record showing brain haemorrhage and amputation of the left lower limb, was affirmed given the direct correlation between the injuries and the functional loss. (¶ 11)
- Compensation under the other heads was enhanced to award just and fair compensation, including Rs.5,00,000 for pain and suffering, Rs.5,00,000 for an artificial limb, Rs.3,00,000 for loss of marriage prospects, Rs.2,00,000 for loss of amenities and Rs.1,00,000 for special diet and transportation, making a total of Rs.35,90,489 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. (¶¶ 12, 13, 17)
- Tribunals and High Courts are duty-bound to keep abreast of the law declared by the Supreme Court; the appeals were avoidable because the rule on a child's notional income had been settled before the Tribunal's award. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Where a claimant fails to furnish adequate details or proof of income, it is the obligation of the contesting party, particularly the insurance company, to place before the Tribunal the applicable minimum wage notified by the government; copies of the order to be circulated to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals through the Registrar Generals of the High Courts. (¶¶ 16, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; award as modified by the High Court further modified to Rs.35,90,489 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition; amount to be remitted directly to the appellant's bank account before 30 September 2025; direction on furnishing minimum wage schedules to be circulated to all Claims Tribunals.