Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently increased the compensation for a girl under 12 from Rs 18.97 lakh to Rs 34.07 lakh after she sustained a 75% permanent disability in a 2013 road accident.

A bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna (Present CJI) and Justice Sanjay Kumar allowed an appeal by Rushi alias Ruchi Thapa through her father Sri Dhan Bahadur Thapa against the Gauhati High Court's judgment which raised the compensation amount from Rs 5.59 lakh to Rs 18.97 lakh.

The child suffered from severe Hemiparesis in her left upper and lower limbs, after the vehicle in which she was travelling with her father was hit by the Max Pick Up Van on April 13, 2013.

Before the apex court, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited asserted the compensation awarded by the high court was just and proper. It, however, accepted that token compensation of Rs 4 to 5 lakh may be awarded towards attendant charges.

The appellant, however, filed a statement computing her total claim, aggregating to Rs 48,68,000 under various heads.

Relying upon Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand and others (2020), the bench highlighted that the Supreme Court had previously dealt with a similar case involving a twelve-year-old child who suffered 90% permanent disability due to an accident. In that case, the argument presented was that, given the child’s young age, a notional income of ₹15,000 per annum should be considered.

However, the bench noted that the Supreme Court had rejected this argument, instead adopting the minimum wages for a skilled workman to calculate the child’s notional loss of earnings.

"In the case on hand, the High Court adopted the minimum wages payable to unskilled labour, i.e., Rs 169 per day, but there is no justification for the same as the appellant was a school-going child at the time of her accident. The minimum wages payable to a skilled workman, as per the notification dated 01.03.2013 of the Government of Assam, stood at Rs 175 per day, which is more acceptable," the bench said.

On that basis, the notional loss of income of the appellant would work out to Rs 5,250 per month and the multiplier applicable would be 15, considering her age at the time of the accident. In effect, the notional loss of earnings would work out to Rs 9,45,000, the bench said.

In the case, the bench said, the High Court failed to consider the loss of future prospects at the rate 40% of of the monthly salary, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kajal case. Therefore, a further sum of Rs 3,78,000 would be payable to the appellant under that head, it held. 

The sum of Rs 3 lakh computed by the High Court for pain, suffering and loss of amenities is just and warrants no interference. Similarly, the compensation of Rs 3 lakh for loss of marriage prospects is sufficient, the bench said.

"However, though the High Court calculated compensation for future medical treatment as Rs 3 lakh, we are of the opinion that the same would be deficient, given the nature of the permanent disability suffered by the appellant. She would be entitled to Rs 5 lakh under this head, as claimed by her in her computation statement," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that further, attendant charges would also have to be considered as the appellant would be helpless without assistance. In Kajal case, this court opined that the multiplier method would be the most realistic and reasonable method for this purpose, the bench said.

The monthly expense for one attendant was quantified as Rs 5,000. Adopting the same, the appellant would be entitled to Rs 9 lakh under this head, the court held.

In the case, though, the appellant reiterated a claim for Rs 13 lakh towards the expenses incurred for treatment and hospitalization, the bench noted that the fact remained that the appellant’s father could produce bills only for Rs 84,771. 

"We are, therefore, not inclined to accept this claim without proof," the bench said.

Having determined the compensation as Rs 34,07,771, the court directed the insurance company to pay interest at the rate of 7.5% on the balance amount from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of deposit by it before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati.

Case Title: Miss Rushi @ Ruchi Thapa, through her father, Sri Dhan Bahadur Thapa Versus M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another