Madras HC enhances compensation for Army officer to 73 lakh; grants aid to wife

The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a former Army officer, by enhancing the compensation payable for disability suffered by him on account of a motor accident from Rs 4.5 lakh to Rs 73 lakh..While doing so, the Bench of Justices S Vimala and S Ramathilagam reiterated that the multiplier method should ordinarily be adopted in compensation claims involving permanent disability..Moreover, the Bench in this case has also awarded a substantial amount to the wife of the claimant/officer on account of the pain and mental suffering, trauma, loss of amenities and comfort and loss of consortium she faces. This was done on the initiative of the Court, after suo motu impleading the wife..The accident had rendered the former Havildar a paraplegic in 2007. In 2010, he was discharged from the military under Rule 13 of the Army Rules. Available records indicated that his service was exemplary..His disability was assessed at 100% by a Military Hospital, although another district hospital had determined it at 90%. In either case, the High Court observed there was total functional disability, which would render the officer immobile for the rest of his life..The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had arrived at a compensation amount payable to him at a little over Rs 4.5 lakhs, using the percentage method..However, in the appeal filed by the officer against this verdict, the High Court found that the multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident..It was observed that a departure from using this method is done only in rare and exceptional cases. Therefore, the use of the multiplier system was squarely applicable in the instant case..In this regard, reference was made to various cases, including Kavita v. Deepak, Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande, MCD v. Subhagwanti and MPSRTC v. Sudhakar..Having established this position, the Court determined that the appropriate multiplier to be used in this case is 16, having regard to factors such as functional disability, loss in earnings and the age of the claimant..Objections raised by the Insurance Company that the pension being paid to the claimant after his service should be deducted from the head of “monthly salary”, while quantifying the compensation, were dismissed on the ground that,.“The pension received by the claimant is not a profit, nor could it be stated to be a earning. It is a gratuitous act of the employer recognizing the services rendered by the claimant to the organization.”.Another objection raised was that the documents used to substantiate the vocation of the officer and his discharge from the Army were prone to doubt. However, this concern was also dismissed..“…for the simple reason that the nature and standard of proof required in motor accident cases is not the same as is required under criminal or civil procedures/prosecutions. If at all, the 2nd respondent/insurance company had any doubt, it could very well have let in evidence to disprove those documents. No evidence having been let in by the 2nd respondent/insurance company before the Tribunal…”.Accordingly, the Court enhanced the compensation payable to the officer under the heads of loss of earning capacity, transport expenses, extra nourishment, pain and suffering and medical bills..Further, the Court also awarded compensation under the additional heads of future medical expense, loss of enjoyment of amenities, attendant charges and loss of consortium to the husband..Notably, the Court made it a point to recognise the pain and mental suffering, trauma, loss of amenities and comfort and loss of consortium to the wife of the officer, on account of her husband’s permanent disability. It was observed,.“In such a scenario, the role of the spouse increases manifold; not only she acts as his guardian, but also has to adorn the role of a mother, a servant, an attender and what not….…Whatever the mode of assistance that could be provided to the claimant/injured as attendant, the said person cannot step into the shoes of the spouse while rendering utmost care and attention. None else than the spouse would be more concerned about the welfare of her husband than other individuals, who would only be doing their work in lieu of monetary compensation.”.The Court opined that it was well within its power to invoke social welfare jurisdiction while applying the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in awarding additional compensation to the wife..Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court case of Rajesh and others v Rajbir Singh to emphasise on the significance of a loss of consortium in cases of disablement. The Court went on to hold that in order to do substantial justice,.“…taking note of the necessity of the spouse to act as attendant over and above her normal duties as caretaker of the household and also the loss that she would be suffering on account of the total invalidation of the claimant at the young age of 34 years, this Court deems it fit and proper that both the claimant as well as the spouse needs to be compensated.”.Therefore, the officer’s wife was awarded a consolidated amount of Rs 5 lakh..The amount was categorised under a single head on the ground that quantifying the compensation under separate heads would be nothing but demeaning the services that the wife would be rendering to her husband and the sufferings she would have to endure..The Court also expressed hope that this compensation.“…would linger in the mind of the wife and instill upon her the necessity to show compassion towards the claimant and would wipe any thought of her leaving the suffering partner in lurch.”.Ultimately, the Court arrived at a cumulative figure of Rs. 73,82,137 with interest, as the compensation payable to the officer and his wife. Specific instructions were given to ensure that the funds are also utilised towards the future education of the couple’s minor son..Before parting with the case, the Court also noted that the application of the multiplier method is not well understood by judicial officers. On this aspect, the Court opined that it is high time that necessary training is imparted to the Judicial Officers, so that the litigant public is not put to undue stress and delay and are able to reap the benefit of the benevolent legislation in time..Therefore, the Registry has been directed to mark a copy of the order to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy for the necessary follow up action.