Motor Accident Compensation - Supreme Court Awards Rs 15 Lakhs As Compensation For 'Pain & Suffering' To Claimant With 100% Disability

Dealing with the case of a motor accident injured, the Supreme Court recently analyzed the jurisprudence on "pain and suffering" (one of the heads under which compensation is awarded to motor accident victims) and enhanced the amount of compensation awarded - beyond what was prayed for.

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, allowing the appeal of the injured-appellant, awarded a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs under the head "pain and suffering" even though the appellant had prayed for Rs.10 lakhs.

"Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the 'pain and suffering' caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs.15,00,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering', fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant–appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."

Going through a plethora of judicial precedents and other scholarly material across various disciplines (bioethics, medical ethics, psycho-oncology, anesthesiology, philosophy, sociology), the Court found a commonality emerging that a person's understanding of oneself is "shaken or compromised" at its very root at the hands of consistent suffering.

"In the present facts, it is unquestionable that the sense of something being irreparably wrong in life, as spoken by Frank (supra); vulnerability and futility, as spoken by Edgar, is present and such a feeling will be present for the remainder of his natural life", it said.

To briefly state facts of the case, the appellant was travelling in his company vehicle when it collided with a container lorry being driven negligently. He suffered 90% permanent disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal took the appellant's functional disability as 100% and held the insurance company liable to pay Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest per annum (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-).

Aggrieved by the MACT order, both the appellant and the insurance company appealed to the Karnataka High Court. The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.58,09,930/- to Rs.78,16,390/-. Challenging the High Court order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court and sought enhancement of compensation awarded under the heads future medical expenses, future prospects, and pain and suffering.

The Supreme Court modified the award of compensation on two counts - future prospects and 'pain and suffering'. The total amount liable to be paid to the appellant was held to be Rs.1,02,29,241/-.

In enhancing the compensation under the head 'pain and suffering', the Court noted that there was no dispute as to the injuries sustained by the appellant being serious, and their effects on his life being long-lasting.

It took into consideration a doctor's testimony, which recorded that the appellant was wheelchair bound, could not do any work, would need help for all his day-to-day activities and that the impairment was likely permanent.

The Court further referred to the decisions in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance (2022) 7 SCC 738, and Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 9 SCC 805, where compensations under the head 'pain and suffering' were enhanced and awarded between the range of Rs.3-15 lakhs.

The following extract from Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty (2003) 7 SCC 197 was also extracted in the judgement:

“18. A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident through out his life and a feeling is developed that his no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities, features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to be reckoned.”

Case Title: K.S. MURALIDHAR VERSUS R. SUBBULAKSHMI & ANR, SLP(C)No.18337/2021

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Click here to read the judgment