Intellectual disability caused by motor accidents can't be confined to percentages: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that intellectual disability arising from a motor accident can be assessed as 100 percent functional disability even if the medical disability percentage is lower [XXXX & anr v The United India Insurance Co Ltd and anr].

Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that in cases of intellectual disability, the assessment of compensation cannot be confined to medical percentages alone but must also include the actual impact of the disability on the victim's life, particularly their ability to lead an independent life.

"Being intellectually disabled, no amount of money can renew her mental faculties that have been battered or shattered due to the accident," the Judge added.

Intellectual disability is not merely a physical impairment but a condition that affects intelligence, adaptive functioning and the ability to live independently, the Court explained.

In the present case, the Court found the victim's mental age to be around 6 years, despite her being 25-years-old and that she was capable of performing daily activities only under supervision.

In such circumstances, the Court explained that monetary compensation could only provide financial support for lifelong care and not help in restoring the cognitive capacity of the victim to lead a normal life.

"Intellectual disability results in lifelong impairment and functional incapacity," the Court added.

Hence, the Court enhanced the compensation to the motor accident victim to ₹28.33 lakh.

The case arose from a road accident in 2004 in which the victim, then aged 3.5 years, sustained severe head injuries leading to traumatic brain injury and subsequent intellectual disability.

Her mother approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation of ₹2.9 lakh. The tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded ₹4.37 lakh as compensation.

Dissatisfied with the quantum, the victim and her mother approached the High Court in appeal seeking enhancement, contending that the award failed to account for the lifelong consequences of the disability.

Before the High Court, they argued that though the Medical Board assessed permanent disability at 80%, including 75% intellectual disability, the victim was functionally completely dependent.

It was submitted that she had lost opportunity for education, employment, even marriage and would require lifelong supervision and support.

The Court also interacted with the victim in person and observed that although she had attained adulthood, her behaviour and traits resembled that of a small child.

It took note of the medical board report which further confirmed that she had moderate intellectual disability along with motor impairments and could only manage daily activities with supervision.

In this backdrop, the Court held that medical disability cannot be the sole criterion for assessing compensation.

Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Court reiterated that functional disability reflecting the actual loss of life capacity must be given importance while deciding compensation.

The Court adopted the multiplier method to compute compensation instead of awarding a lump sum amount and recalculated the compensation to be awarded to the claimant and her mother, under various heads.

"Upon interacting with her in person and considering the report of the Medical Board as well as the documents produced by the appellants, I deem it appropriate to reassess and fix her functional disability at 100%. Since the functional disability is fixed at 100%, following Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), I am inclined to adopt the multiplier method instead of awarding a consolidated amount following Master Mallikarjunan (supra)," the Court said and reassessed the victim's functional disability at 100% percent.

In total, the compensation was enhanced to ₹28,33,869 from ₹4.37, along with interest at 7 percent per annum.

The Court directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the tribunal within two months and also ordered the tribunal to keep 60 percent of the compensation in a long-term fixed deposit to secure the victims future and to allow partial withdrawal by the appellants for immediate needs, from the remaining 40%.

Advocates K Shaj and Bharat Vijay appeared for the appellants.

Avocate P Muraleedharan represented the insurer.

[Read Judgment]