Case Title: Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Co. Ltd. and Another
Summary
The Supreme Court has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs. 15.9 Lakhs to a motor vehicle accident victim who sustained a 75% whole body injury, as opposed to the previous amount of Rs. 2.3 Lakhs. The claimant’s infirmity resulted in her remaining unmarried, and the Bench has also awarded compensation for her “loss of marriage prospects.” The case involved Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N., a 24-year-old graduate and Marketing Executive, who was involved in a road accident in 2007 and sustained injuries. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Co. Ltd. insured the offending vehicle. The High Court upheld the compensation amount on 07.01.2019, but the interest rate was reduced to 6% per annum.
The Bench increased the compensation for “Pain and Suffering” by an additional Rs. 50,000/-, noting that the claimant was hospitalized for ten days and had been receiving continuous treatment thereafter. The Bench determined that the compensation requires re-computation in light of the monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- as indicated in the salary certificate. The claimant is entitled to compensation for the loss of marriage prospects as a result of her 75% corporeal disability, which prevented her from getting married.
In determining the compensation for “Loss of Future Income,” the Bench consulted Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The compensation has been revised/enhanced to Rs. 15,94,812/- in addition to 6% p.a. interest from the date of the petition’s filing.
About the case
The Supreme Court has granted an enhanced compensation of Rs. 15.9 Lakhs to a motor vehicle accident victim who had sustained a 75% whole body injury, as opposed to the previous amount of Rs. 2.3 Lakhs. The Claimant’s infirmity resulted in her remaining unmarried, and the Bench has also awarded compensation for her “loss of marriage prospects.”
During the adjudication of an appeal filed in Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Co. Ltd. and Another, the Bench, which consisted of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aravind Kumar, noted that the Claimant’s inability to work as a result of the disability could not be discounted on the basis that his employer was not examined or no letter was produced from the employer. The Tribunal and High Court cannot disregard disability evidence, including disability certificates and identity cards issued by the Directorate for the Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizens.
Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N. (“Appellant/Claimant”) was involved in a road accident in 2007 and sustained injuries. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Co. Ltd. (“Respondent No. 1/Insurer”) insured the offending vehicle. Claimant submitted a petition pursuant to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in order to request compensation. On oath, the Claimant declared that he is a 24-year-old graduate and was employed as a Marketing Executive, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000. According to the Claimant, the tragedy resulted in a permanent physical disability of 48% and a 75% disability to their body. The Claimant’s income was construed by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal (“Tribunal”) to be Rs. 3,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,36,812/-, as well as interest at 8% per annum. During the layoff period, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- for pain, injuries, and suffering, Rs. 1,16,812/- for medical and incidental expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of earning, Rs. 40,000/- for permanent disability, and Rs. 20,000/- for loss of amenities in future life.
Before the High Court, the Claimant filed a challenge to the Award in order to request an increase in compensation. The compensation amount was upheld by the High Court on 07.01.2019; however, the interest rate was reduced to 6% per annum. Before the Supreme Court, the Claimant submitted an appeal that contested the compensation’s amount.
The Bench increased the compensation for “Pain and Suffering” by an additional Rs. 50,000/-, noting that the Claimant was hospitalized for ten days and had been receiving continuous treatment thereafter.
The Bench observed that the Claimant had submitted a salary certificate to substantiate his monthly income of Rs. 8,000/- and stated under oath that he was unable to perform his typical responsibilities. It is inaccurate to assert that the Claimant did not sustain any bodily injury solely because the Employer was not examined or a letter was not generated from the Employer. It is impossible to disregard the disability certificate and identity card issued by the Directorate for the Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizens as evidence of disability.
The Bench determined that the compensation requires re-computation in light of the monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- as indicated in the salary certificate, with respect to the Claimant’s salary. The claimed salary of the Claimant could not have been disregarded by the High Court or the Tribunal on the basis of hyper technical considerations.
“The claimant has testified that he was employed as a Marketing Executive at a private company named M/s Golden Investments, and that he received a monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-, as indicated in the salary certificate Ex.P-6. His employer was undoubtedly not examined by the claimant. On this basis, the Insurer is unable to assert that the claimant was either unable to earn or was not earning Rs.8,000/- per month. 2007, was the year in which the tragedy in question took place. During 2007, even a mason was earning a minimum of Rs.300/- per day, or Rs.9,000/- per month. The bench held that the claimant’s plea for a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month, which is within the realm of reality and could not have been disregarded by the Tribunal or the High Court on hyper-technical grounds, is warranted. The claimant is a graduate and is employed as a Marketing Executive.
According to the Bench, the Claimant is entitled to compensation for the loss of marriage prospects as a result of her 75% corporeal disability, which prevented her from getting married. This has been the case:
“Claimant has experienced a 75% whole-body disability as a result of the injuries sustained.” He has unambiguously stated that his marriage prospects are dim as a result of the injuries he has sustained and the subsequent infirmity he has also experienced. In the affidavit submitted on 30.09.2022, he deposed that he has not been married and that no one has approached him to propose marriage. In other words, the appellant’s aspirations to marry would remain a pipe dream, and he must be entitled to appropriate compensation for the loss of this opportunity. As a result, we grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the “loss of marriage prospects.”
In determining the compensation for “Loss of Future Income,” the Bench consulted Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The Claimant was awarded Rs.12,96,000/- accordingly.
Furthermore, the compensation for “Loss of earnings during laid-up period” has been revised to reflect the Claimant’s monthly income of Rs. 8,000/-.The compensation has been revised/enhanced by the Bench to Rs. 15,94,812/- in addition to 6% p.a. interest from the date of the petition’s filing.
