The Supreme Court recently called upon courts and tribunals to make efforts to ameliorate the misery of victims of motor accidents who suffer from permanent disability (Jithendran v. New India Assurance)..The Bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy stated in its judgment,"The very fact that a healthy person turns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship, and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss of self-dignity. Such a Claimant must not be viewed as a modern day Oliver Twist, having to make entreaties as the boy in the orphanage in Charles Dickens’s classic, “Please Sir, I want some more”. The efforts must be to substantially ameliorate the misery of the claimant and recognize his actual needs by accounting for the ground realities.".The Court was dealing with a case in which a 21-year-old man riding pillion on a motorbike met with a car accident, as a result of which he was left with 69% permanent disability. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal had ordered a compensation of ₹5.5 lakh, which was increased to ₹14.5 lakh by the Kerala High Court on appeal.Not satisfied with this amount, the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking provision to be made for adding expenses for the service of a bystander/attendant to take care of him..The apex court granted the same, noting,"The claimant with seriously impaired cognitive and physical capabilities would surely need full time assistance even for the confined life that he is leading. In such circumstances, the disabled claimant cannot be expected to rely only upon gratuitous services of his well wishers and family members. Importantly, the presiding judge in the Tribunal himself noticed that the claimant would require the assistance of a bystander/attendant for all his movements."As regards compensation for loss of earning, the Court held that while the claimant suffered from 69% permanent disability, his functional disability as regards earning a living was 100%. Therefore, it was held,"There is no other way to assess the earning loss since the appellant is incapacitated for life and is confined to home. In such circumstances, his loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100%.".The Court thus fixed the total compensation to be paid to the claimant at ₹27.67 lakh, which included ₹10.8 lakh for expenses for an attendant, and ₹13.6 lakh for loss of earning power..The Bench also urged the courts to strive at attaining realistic compensation for such victims. The judgment stated,"The Courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant. In cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant is suffering severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the Courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’s loss of earning capacity is concerned.".It was further held that while the money awarded to such victims can hardly redress their actual sufferings, courts should make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such victims, by awarding just compensation.Advocate A Karthik appeared for the appellant-claimant while advocate JPN Shahi represented the insurance company. .[Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court recently called upon courts and tribunals to make efforts to ameliorate the misery of victims of motor accidents who suffer from permanent disability (Jithendran v. New India Assurance)..The Bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy stated in its judgment,"The very fact that a healthy person turns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship, and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss of self-dignity. Such a Claimant must not be viewed as a modern day Oliver Twist, having to make entreaties as the boy in the orphanage in Charles Dickens’s classic, “Please Sir, I want some more”. The efforts must be to substantially ameliorate the misery of the claimant and recognize his actual needs by accounting for the ground realities.".The Court was dealing with a case in which a 21-year-old man riding pillion on a motorbike met with a car accident, as a result of which he was left with 69% permanent disability. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal had ordered a compensation of ₹5.5 lakh, which was increased to ₹14.5 lakh by the Kerala High Court on appeal.Not satisfied with this amount, the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking provision to be made for adding expenses for the service of a bystander/attendant to take care of him..The apex court granted the same, noting,"The claimant with seriously impaired cognitive and physical capabilities would surely need full time assistance even for the confined life that he is leading. In such circumstances, the disabled claimant cannot be expected to rely only upon gratuitous services of his well wishers and family members. Importantly, the presiding judge in the Tribunal himself noticed that the claimant would require the assistance of a bystander/attendant for all his movements."As regards compensation for loss of earning, the Court held that while the claimant suffered from 69% permanent disability, his functional disability as regards earning a living was 100%. Therefore, it was held,"There is no other way to assess the earning loss since the appellant is incapacitated for life and is confined to home. In such circumstances, his loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100%.".The Court thus fixed the total compensation to be paid to the claimant at ₹27.67 lakh, which included ₹10.8 lakh for expenses for an attendant, and ₹13.6 lakh for loss of earning power..The Bench also urged the courts to strive at attaining realistic compensation for such victims. The judgment stated,"The Courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant. In cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant is suffering severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the Courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’s loss of earning capacity is concerned.".It was further held that while the money awarded to such victims can hardly redress their actual sufferings, courts should make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such victims, by awarding just compensation.Advocate A Karthik appeared for the appellant-claimant while advocate JPN Shahi represented the insurance company. .[Read Judgment]
