Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Sections 168 & 173—Compensation—Permanent disability—Loss of income due to functional disability—Appellant herein has suffered permanent disability of 70% and has an amputated right lower limb amongst other injuries—High  Court has wrongly taken the view that the Appellant has only suffered 35% functional disability—Appellant is not a salaried person but is self-employed who manages his business—For the Appellant to be able to augment his income, he is most definitely required to move around—Appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility further—This proves that the functional disability of the appellant will severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35% functional disability calculated by the High Court is incorrect—Loss of future earning capacity must be calculated at 60%.
[Paras 13 to 16]
Sections 168 & 173—Compensation—Permanent disability—Future prospects—High Court has not applied the quantum for future prospect in the compensation granted—In cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects—“Just compensation” must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident took place—Even if the income of the appellant had increased after the accident, it would not be enough grounds to disable the appellant from claiming compensation for future prospect as the rise in income may be attributed to multiple other factors—Applicable 40% addition of future prospects will be given as compensation to the appellant.
[Paras 17 to 21]
Sections 168 & 173—Compensation—Permanent disability—Compensation for the purchase and maintenance of the prosthetic leg—High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,20,000/- for the prosthetic limb and Rs. 50,000/- towards repair and maintenance of the same—Appellant submits that the cost of the prosthetic limb itself is Rs. 2,60,000/- and the life of the prosthetic limb is only 5-6 years—Prosthetic limb also requires repair and maintenance after every 6 months to 1 year, and each repair costs between Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-—Appellant at the time of the accident was aged 37 years and has a full life ahead—Purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to the position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible—As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if it was to assume that limb would not need to be replaced after a fewyears—Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more—Appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age—For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-.
[Paras 22 & 23]
Sections 168 & 173—Compensation—Permanent disability—Non-pecuniary compensation—High Court has upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for non-pecuniary damages, which comes to Rs. 3,00,000/- in total—Considering nature of the permanent disability caused by accident and the effect it will have on the appellant’s life, the compensation provided by the High Court for non-pecuniary heads is inadequate—Compensation to be awarded is as follows:I. Compensation for pain and suffering – Rs. 2,00,000/- II. Compensation for Loss of Amenities of Life – Rs. 2,00,000/- III. Compensation for disability and disfigurement – Rs. 2,00,000/-.
[Paras 25 & 26]
Sections 168 & 173—Compensation—Permanent disability—Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,76,465 enhanced to Rs. 16,70,932 by the High Court—Appeal—While awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability caused to claimants, the courts must look at the case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic background of the claimants—Appellant comes from an economically weaker section of the society—Persons from marginalized backgrounds often face an additional layer of discrimination due to bodily disabilities—This is because persons from marginalized sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination—In such circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice, it becomes the duty of the Court to at the very least restore the claimant as best as possible to the position he was in before the occurrence of the disability, and to do so must award compensation in a liberal manner—While no material compensation can completely negate the trauma and suffering that the injured and his family faces, the law only knows the language of monetary compensation in such cases—It then becomes to duty of the court to translate the provisions of monetary compensation into a fabrication that helps the injured and his family in coping with their loss—On the basis of the such facts and analysis, the just compensation to be awarded to the claimant/appellant under different heads—Claimant/appellant is held entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,70,120 along with 9% interest per annum from the date of making the application—Appeals allowed.
[Paras 27 to 32]