‘Not Just Minimum Wages’: SC Enhances Compensation for CA Student’s Family in Motor Accident Case

The accident victim, Sharad Singh, was a 20-year-old B.Com student who was also enrolled in the Chartered Accountants course at the time of the incident in 2001. He was rendered immobile with paraplegia due to a fracture after being hit by a car driven in a rash and negligent manner while he was riding pillion on a bike.

The counsel for the appellant, Singh's mother, argued that adopting minimum wages had no rationale for determining the income of a bright student who was on the path to completing his graduation and proceeding to sit for the Chartered Accountants examinations.

The bench held that it was "not necessary that the minimum wages would be considered in a case of compensation in motor accident cases on the basis of education qualification only, without reference to the nature of the work".

The bench further observed, "We were not convinced that the minimum wages would be determined on the basis of the educational qualification alone without reference to the nature of work carried on".

Court noted that for a graduate who was in the process of sitting for the Chartered Accountant examination, the course would have placed him in a good employment position with immense prospects. The bench acknowledged that the young man's aspirations were shattered by the accident, which left him paraplegic and fighting for breath, also prompting his parents to relocate to another part of the country.

"We are of the opinion that even if he had not obtained the certificate as a Chartered Accountant, upon graduation, he could have been employed as an Accountant, who would have, on any reasonable estimate, received an amount of Rs 5,000 as monthly income in the year 2001, if the minimum wages Rs.3,352," the bench stated.

The claimant's challenge arose out of the quantum of compensation awarded, specifically concerning the determined income and the future medical expenses, as evidenced by bills produced before the apex court.

The insurance company, the respondent, contended that the victim, a permanent resident of Delhi, had produced medical bills from hospitals in Goa and Bengaluru. The company expressed its inability to verify these bills and stressed that no explanation had been offered for the treatments carried out in places other than his hometown.

The bench, however, was not persuaded by this argument, stating, "We were not impressed with the contention that there was no possibility of the company verifying the bills which the appellant asserted were from Goa and not from Bengaluru. The respondent company having its offices all over India cannot raise such a contention". The bench was convinced by the appellant's explanation that the victim, being paraplegic and suffering from pneumonia, had to be shifted to Goa due to adverse climatic conditions in Delhi, which would have aggravated his affliction.

Court directed the appellant to produce a tabulated list of the bills regarding the expenses incurred after the high court's order, up to the date of the victim's death, which were in addition to the bills submitted before the tribunal and the high court.

Following the verification by the Insurance Company, which submitted that bills amounting to Rs 21 lakhs were genuine, the bench said, "We are of the opinion that an amount of Rs 20 lakhs is to be paid to the applicant for expenses incurred in sustaining the life of the victim, her son, for 20 years when he was completely bed ridden from 2001 till 2021 with 100 per cent disability as certified by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences".

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had originally awarded a total amount of Rs 18,03,512, comprising the medical bills and the loss of income. The total compensation awarded by the high court was Rs 32,46,388. The apex court computed the total compensation as Rs 40,34,356, to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the filing of the petition till realisation, as awarded by the tribunal and the high court, within a period of four months.

In addition to this amount, court held that the insurance company would also be liable to pay Rs 20 lakhs as future expenses incurred by the victim's parents, which would not carry any interest if paid within a period of four months, but on failure, would carry 9 per cent interest from the date of the judgment.