The Karnataka High Court while enhancing compensation of 14 years old (at the time of injury) who suffered permanent disability to his pelvic region in an accident, has noted that Courts and Tribunal are vested with powers to award compensation more than what is mentioned in the petition if they find it as just and fair and that defective or inadequate prayer won’t be a hurdle to them to assess and award just compensation. 

The division bench comprising of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde also reiterated that possession of one’s own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights and bodily injury should be equated with deprivation of basic human rights which entitles compensation depending upon the gravity of the injury and observed that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability in respect of his sexual organ, as well as around hip which nullifies his marriage prospect and makes the injury grave which deserve a rational compensation.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner herein met with an accident while taking a walk on road and suffered permanent disability to his pelvic region. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of ₹3,73,988 against claimed compensation of ₹11,75,000. The petitioner has now approached High Court seeking enhancement in compensation amount.

High Court Observation

The Court at the outset stated that the object of awarding compensation is not to confer a windfall on the claimant but the court/tribunal has to balance the conflicting claim of the victim and the tortfeasor.

It further noted that from the evidence placed before the Tribunal, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability in respect of his sexual organ, as well as around hip.

"The compensation should offer solace to the victim of the accident. As observed above, the petitioner who is aged 14 years has suffered an injury to his sexual organ causing permanent disability. Ex.P14 is the disability certificate issued by the doctor and said certificate reveals the petitioner has suffered 40% permanent physical disability and loss of physical function concerning the pelvic region. Under the circumstance, the award of Rs.50,000/- on the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life is extremely conservative, to say the least."

The Court opined that the award of Rs.54,000 under the head loss of future earning capacity and award of Rs.50,000 under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment of life are not in sync with the settled principles governing compensation and in fact, the award under these two heads cannot be termed as compensation at all.

The Court cited SC Ruling in Rekha Jain & ANR. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 Latest Caselaw 519 SC wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, while awarding compensation in case of personal injuries, the court has to take into account the human rights angle and said that possession of one’s own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights and bodily injury should be equated with deprivation of basic human rights which entitles compensation depending upon the gravity of the injury.

In the present case, the Court stated that since the marriage prospect of the claimant is wiped out, the claimant is deprived of all the pleasure and benefits of married life. The loss is so huge and is incapable of evaluation in terms of money.

"Given the kind of disability suffered by the claimant, the mental trauma which the claimant has to undergo for the rest of his life, is much more painful than the physical pain that he has suffered immediately after the accident. The mental trauma of having to remain single, and answering the curious questions posed by the people around throughout life, for not getting married, are some of the things not easy to cope with. The trauma is going to be perennial and unabated. Such being the position, the duty is cast upon the Tribunals and Courts to award just compensation to ensure that the unbearable mental trauma is mitigated to the extent possible and the claimant can live with some dignity and find some solace in the monetary compensation awarded."

 Thus, enhancing the compensation of the petitioner, the Court observed:

"The compensation payable under the non-pecuniary heads is not dependent on the social status, educational qualification or income of the claimant. It affects the poor and the rich alike. The rich may have some means of their own to mitigate the pain. Unfortunately for the poor, they need to depend on the compensation to be awarded to trace the silver line around the dark cloud cast by the permanent disability. The claimant, in this case, hails from an impoverished background. Since the award is going to be passed in respect of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, by taking into consideration the inflation and constantly depreciating purchasing power of the rupee, this court deems deem it appropriate and award Rs.10,00,000 on this head."

 In another aspect, the Court pointed that as the compensation awarded by this court is higher than what is claimed. Is the Court justified in doing so is a naturally question.

"The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is benevolent legislation. The duty is cast upon the Tribunal to award just and fair compensation to the victim of a Motor Vehicle Accident. Though the claim made in the petition is less than what the Tribunal or Court finds as just and fair compensation, the power of the Tribunal or the Court to award just and fair compensation to the victim is not taken away because of prayer for a lesser amount. This court is conscious of the fact that it is difficult to assess the compensation under the nonpecuniary heads as the compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life and loss of expectation of life would not come with a price label. It has to be adjudicated in each case taking into consideration several factors. Defective or inadequate prayer won’t be a hurdle to the Tribunal and Courts to assess and award just compensation. The compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal is not bogged down by the figure mentioned in the prayer column of the claim petition. On the other hand, Tribunals and courts are guided by the principles of law and sense of justice while adjudicating the compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. If relief is not moulded by awarding higher compensation, we will be failing in our duty."

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon