Karnataka High Court orders ₹17.68 lakh compensation to man who suffered permanent disability to sexual organs in road accident

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court recently awarded ₹17.68 lakh as compensation to a man who was hit by a lorry, leading to permanent disability in his pelvic region and rendering him incapable of having penile erection and sexual intercourse [Basavaraj v. Umesh]. .A Bench of Justices SG Pandit and Anant Ramanath Hegde increased the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) from ₹3.73 lakh to ₹17.68 lakh.While passing the order, the Court noted that determining the amount of compensation payable under non-financial heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life and loss of expectations in life is not simple, especially when the victim has suffered a permanent disability at a young age. For compensation of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, the Court said that it must be kept in mind that the claimant has suffered an irreversible injury, and his marriage prospects have been destroyed, depriving him of the pleasure and benefits of married life.Even if he were to get married, he would not be able to enjoy a conjugal relationship or have children of his own, the Court noted."Since the marriage prospect of the claimant is wiped out, the claimant is deprived of all the pleasure and benefits of married life. The loss is so huge and is incapable of evaluation in terms of money," said the Court..The accident happened in 2011, when the claimant, who was 14 years old, was walking on the road with his father when he was hit by a lorry. He suffered grievous injuries, including multiple fractures to his pelvic area and a ruptured urethra, for which he was hospitalized and had to undergo two surgeries. .Medical records revealed that suffered 40 percent permanent disability and loss of physical function in his pelvic region, rendering him unable to achieve a penile erection and have sexual intercourse. The doctor also opined that the claimant would have difficulty in lifting weights, stiffness in his hip joints and pain while urinating. .Referring to a judgement of the Supreme Court in Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Company, the Court noted that the human rights angle must be taken into account. "Possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights and bodily injury should be equated with deprivation of basic human rights which entitles compensation depending upon the gravity of the injury," the Court said..The objective of awarding compensation under non-financial heads is to restore as far as possible, the position of the victim which existed before the accident. In the case of death or permanent disability, no amount of compensation can restore the position, however, courts and tribunals can mitigate suffering to the best possible extent, said the Court..Moreover, the claimant would have mental trauma for the rest of his life, which would be more painful than the physical pain he suffered in the immediate aftermath of the incident. The MACT and courts thus have a duty to award a fair compensation to mitigate the mental trauma suffered by victims of road accidents, the Court observed..Pertinently, the Court stated that compensation payable under non-pecuniary heads is not dependent on the social status, educational qualification or the income of the claimant, as it affects the rich and poor alike. The Court observed that the rich may have some means of their own to mitigate the pain, but the poor are dependent on the compensation awarded to them, such as the present petitioner who is from an impoverished background. .The Court also said that inflation and the depreciating purchasing power of the rupee must be factored in while awarding compensation. .The MACT had granted ₹50,000 for pain and suffering, ₹54,000 for loss of future prospects, ₹50,000 for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life to the claimant. The Court increased the compensation to ₹1,50,000 for pain and suffering, ₹3,62,880 for loss of future prospects and ₹10,00,000 for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, and added the head of "loss of expectation of life" with ₹50,000 to it. .The Court remarked that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a benevolent legislation, which casts a duty upon the MACT to award a just and fair compensation to the victim of a road accident. Even if the claim or prayer was of a lesser amount, the tribunal can award a higher amount depending on the circumstances of the case. "The Court is conscious of the fact that it is difficult to assess the compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life and loss of expectation of life would not come with a price label. It has to be adjudicated in each case taking into consideration several factors... The compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal is not bogged down by the figure mentioned in the prayer column of the claim petition." .Advocate Hanumanthareddy Sahukar represented the appellant-claimant, and Advocate Suresh S Gundi appeared for the respondent insurance company. .[Read Judgment]