'Paraplegia Impacts Marital Life, Deprives Children Of Love': Bombay HC Grants Over ₹1 Crore Compensation To Road Accident Victim

Nit-picking and awarding meagre amounts of compensation to accident victims, unmindful of their deep mental and emotional scars, is an affront of the injured victim, the Bombay High Court has reiterated this while awarding compensation of more than Rs 1 crore to a claimant, who sustained multiple injuries in a road accident in 2004.

A single judge bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai allowed the appeal of the claimant, who has become paraplegic since the accident, and awarded him a total compensation of Rs 64,86,715. Excluding the amount of Rs 23,18,000 in respect of future expenditure, the court said he shall be entitled to an interest of 7.5 percent per annum on Rs 41,68,715 from the date of application till final realisation.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mumbai had earlier awarded the claimant a compensation of Rs.48,38,543 with interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of the application till final realisation. The claim application was filed in 2005 and decided in 2009.

Observing that paraplegia is a form of paralysis of lower body and restricts everyday routine physical activity, the court said it not just impairs the physical, mental, social and financial well being of a married victim but also impacts the lives of his spouse - who inevitably becomes main caregiver, children and infirm parents.

"…shared vows, friendship, intimacy and emotional support become a thing of the past," said the court.

It emphasised that "monetary compensation howsoever high" cannot rebuild the life of the victim or reduce his physical or mental trauma.

"It cannot restore the shattered dreams of the spouse, bring back lost childhood of the children or relieve the agony of the parents of seeing their child in a vegetative state," said the court.

However, the court said, the object and endeavour of the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide much needed financial stability to the victim and the family to navigate the change with minimal trauma.

"From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts of oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront of the injured victim," said the court, while reiterating the observations made by Supreme Court in Pappu Dev Yadav v/s. Naresh Kumar in 2020.

Justice Prabhudessai said the Supreme Court has reiterated that 'just compensation' for cases under the Motor Vehicles Act means "all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as he or she was in, before the occurrence of the accident."

"The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in Judge's mind whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims," the judge said while relying on the Pappu Dev Yadav case.

Holding the victim entitled to a reimbursement of Rs 13,77,915 for medical expenses, the judge granted enhanced compensation of Rs 9,18,000 towards attendant charges; another Rs. 10,50,000 lakh for future medical expenses; Rs. 3,50,000 lakh for special diet and Rs 5 lakh for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

"The Claimant, a young man of 26 years of age is wheelchair bound for life. In addition to physical and mental suffering, his mobility impairment is likely to affect his conjugal relationship and shatter his hope to nurture children. He is unable to enjoy amenities of life, which he would have otherwise enjoyed but for the tragic accidental injuries."

However, the bench noted that the tribunal wrongly relied on income tax returns of years subsequent to the accident to compensate for loss of income, and reduced the amount for it from Rs. 28 lakhs to Rs 22 lakhs. The loss of earning is 100 percent in the case but claimant having failed to prove the actual income, the loss of future earning has to be assessed on the basis of the notional income, said the court.

"Considering the age of the claimant, the notional income can be considered at Rs.8,000/- per month i.e., Rs.96,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the Claimant and adding 40% towards loss of future prospects, total amount would be Rs.1,34,400/- per annum. Applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of future earnings of the Claimant works out to Rs.22,84,800/," the court said

The court also said, "Having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v/s. Gurudayal Singh and ors. (2003) 2 SCC 274, there is no embargo in awarding compensation more than that claimed by the Claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award 'just compensation', even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. "

The court passed the decision on an appeal filed by Yogesh Subhash Panchal, who suffered 100 percent permanent disability when a dumper dashed against the rear side of his motorcycle on November 29 in 2004, against an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In the appeal he had sought enhancement of compensation.

Panchal, who was 26 years old at the time of accident, worked as a metal cutter. In the years since the accident, he underwent several surgeries including stem cell therapy and a spine stabilisation procedure.

Case Title: Yogesh Subhash Panchal v/s. Mohd. Hussain Malik, Dhuni Mohd. Malik and anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 407