Case Title: Master Ayush v The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd, CA 2205/2022
Summary
The Supreme Court has increased the compensation awarded in a motor accident case involving a 5-year-old boy who was permanently paralyzed. The court calculated the payable compensation to be 49,93,000/- plus interest at 7.5% per annum. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal reduced the compensation from Rs. 18,24,000 to Rs. 13,46,806, based on the victim’s appeal. The court ordered a distribution of Rs. 100,000 to the appellant’s father and investment of the remaining amount in fixed deposit receipts to accrue the highest possible interest rate. The court also increased the remuneration due to the child’s physical condition, loss of childhood and adult life, and loss of marriage prospects. The court also ordered an award of 2 lakhs as conveyance charges, considering the child’s sensory impairment in the lower extremities. The appellant would be eligible for 40% for future prospects, in addition to the skilled minimum wage.
About the case
The Supreme Court has increased the amount of compensation awarded in a motor accident case involving a 5-year-old boy who was permanently paralyzed as a result of an accident to more than 50 lakh Rupees. “Mental and physical suffering cannot be quantified in monetary terms; however, the only viable method of compensating the victim is through the payment of just compensation.”
The Bench noted this as it calculated the payable compensation, which amounts to 49,93,000/- plus interest at 7.5% per annum. A bench consisting of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian was deliberating on an appeal lodged by the victim, which challenged the High Court’s decision to reduce the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 18,24,000 to Rs. 13,46,806.
The bench has issued an order for the distribution of Rs. 100,000 to the appellant’s father and the investment of the remaining amount in one or more fixed deposit receipts in order to accrue the highest possible interest rate. “The monthly interest payment shall be made in the name of the appellant’s guardian.” “During the appellant’s minority, the guardian shall have the option to request withdrawal orders for the amount based on a medical opinion if the child is required to incur significant medical expenses,” the Bench stated.
In consideration of the appellant’s medical certificate, which states that he has bilateral elbow crutches and Advanced Reciprocating Gait Orthosis (ARGO), is immobile in both legs, has complete sensory loss in the legs, experiences urinary incontinence and bowel constipation, and has a bed sore, the Bench issued the directive. The Bench has increased the remuneration in light of and with reference to the subsequent factors: Given the appellant’s physical condition, he is eligible to receive lifelong assistance from one attendant and may require the use of a prosthetic device to facilitate walking. Nevertheless, taking into account the device’s replacement requirement every five years, the court deemed it justifiable to award the cost of two devices, or Rs. 10 lakhs.
The appellant has not only lost his childhood but also his adult life, according to the court; consequently, loss of marriage prospects is also to be awarded. The taxi driver’s absence has led the Tribunal to deny the taxi expense claim. Generatius of taxi drivers is an unattainable quantity. It has been ordered that an award of 2 lakhs be allocated as conveyance charges. “However, the Tribunal ought to have been cognizant of the child’s state, which consisted entirely of sensory impairment in the lower extremities.” Hence, should the child’s parents have chosen to transport him via taxi, it is likely that that was their sole available alternative.
In accordance with the notification from the State of Karnataka, the minimum wage on the date of the accident is rounded to Rs.3700. Therefore, the appellant’s compensation should be calculated using these minimum wages, presuming that they would have been attainable upon reaching the age of majority. The appellant, as per the Court’s ruling, would be eligible for 40% for future prospects, in addition to the skilled minimum wage.
