MV Act | Paralysis Of Minor's Upper Body Left Him Deadwood At Nascent Stage, Tribunal Erred In Assessing Disability As 50%: Gujarat HC

Enhancing the compensation to Rs. 13,09, 240 along with interest to a 5-year-old boy who became paralytic after a road accident, the Gujarat High Court said that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–which had awarded over Rs. 2 Lakh– had “failed to understand” the effect of paralysis on the boy's upper body which left him “deadwood at the nascent age”.

In doing so the court further underscored that the boy's 'normal living' had turned into misery and 50% physical disability which had been assessed was infact "100% functional disability". 

The Court observed that it is a statutory duty of the Tribunal to assess and grant fair, realistic and just compensation to account for the lifelong impact caused by the injuries incurred post-accident.

Justice J.C. Doshi observed, “In the present case, the minor victim aged 4 to 5 years, at the time of the road accident, suffered paralysis of upper limb of the body. The physical impairment or disability has been assessed to 50% body as a whole. The learned Tribunal has accepted the physical impairment as functional disability and 50% has been adopted to compute the compensation. It appears that the learned Tribunal failed to understand that paralysis on upper part of body rendered the minor victim deadwood at the nascent age. Victim having age of 5 years, as a result of the accidental injury, became just remnant. Though he could breathe and survive, his normal living turned into misery and melancholy. Therefore,50% physical disability body as a whole rather is 100% functional disability.The minor victim becomes useless and kaput for doing any work for whole life and therefore, according to this Court, the learned Tribunal erred in adopting 50% as disability of the minor victim for computing loss of future earning and therefore, said findings deserves to be corrected by holding that the minor victim was fully incapable to do any work.”

In doing so, the Court relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Baby Sakshi Greola v Manzoor Ahmad Simon (2024)  and Kajal vs Jagdish Chand & Ors (2020) pertaining to assessment of compensation. It further referred to Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar (2011) where the Supreme Court had held that the Tribunal owes a duty to assess functional disability and assess impact of physical disability on earning power including potential earning power of the victim. 

In the present case the minor boy was riding as a pillion on a motorcycle with his father when a mini truck driven rashly from the wrong side collided with them, due to which the boy suffered received serious injuries over his skull and body. He filed a claim of Rs. 15 Lakh with the tribunal. 

The appeal was filed challenging the award of the tribunal wherein the minor was granted a compensation of Rs. 2,25,000 with 9% interest for the paraplegia injury sustained by minor at the time of accident.

The Counsel appearing for the claimant argued that the accident has “ruined his life” and the Tribunal awarded an unfair compensation ignoring the severe impact of paraplegia on the 5-year-old's life.

She further contended the accident not only left the child permanently disabled but also caused the death of his father and the Tribunal ought to have assessed the compensation for the paraplegia injury seeing it as a cognitive impairment effect and having long life impact on the claimant's quality of life, as also her inability to form marital bonds.

She then argued that the tribunal awarded “penny, pinching and closefisted” amount of 2,25,000 as compensation instead of adequate amount repairing both physical and mental suffering caused due to the accident.

The Court then perused the appeal memo and evidence that confirmed the road accident is undisputed and resulted to the death minor's father. It noted that the victim suffered severe injuries, including paralysis in the upper left limb and was treated in a hospital and underwent prolonged treatment. The Court reviewed the medical records including a disability certificate by the Doctor that stated the minor sustained 50% permanent disability.

The Court then observed, “As far as non-pecuniary heads, the learned Tribunal has granted the amount so niggardly and it also requires to be enhanced. Considering that the minor claimant has become paraplegic, compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is granted to Rs.3 lakh. Even, the minor claimant has lost marriage prospect as he became paraplegic and therefore, Rs. 2 lakh is required to be granted under the head of loss of marriage prospect and same is granted. The minor claimant is also required to be granted attendant charges throughout of his life, since the claimant became paraplegic. Considering the evidence on record, the claimant is required to have help of a servant to do routine work. Therefore, I hold that the claimant is entitled to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.13,09,240/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest  of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same.”

The Court then partly allowed the appeal and directed the Insurance Company to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.13,09,240/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of claim petition till its realization before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

The Court directed the Tribunal deduct the court fees according to rules/laws and to disburse the entire awarded amount with interest after verification and due procedure to the claimants by cheque/NEFT/RTGS.

Case Title: X vs Balvandsingh Hanubha Rana & Anr.

Case Number: FA/2866 of 2012

Click Here To Read/Download Order