‘Niggardly compensation an affront to accident victim’: Bombay HC grants over Rs 1 cr to paraplegic

“It is observed that the court should be mindful that a serious injury not only imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim,” Justice Prabhudessai noted.

The bench held that the Panchal is entitled for total compensation of Rs 64.86 lakh, inclusive of no-fault liability. Excluding the amount of Rs 23.18 lakh in respect of future expenditure, the court said he shall also be entitled to interest on an amount of Rs 41.68 lakh at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till its final realisation.

On November 29, 2004, the claimant was travelling on his motorcycle near Sonapur bus stand when a dumper truck hit the rear side of his motorbike. Panchal sustained multiple injuries in the accident and became 100% permanently disabled.

The claimant, through advocate Rina Kundu, alleged that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. Kundu said the claimant, who was 26 years old when the accident occurred, incurred huge medical expenses as he was admitted to several hospitals for specialised treatment and became totally bed-ridden and dependent on others for daily chores. He had a metal cutting business and was earning Rs 1.7 lakh per annum, but was no longer able to earn his livelihood. Aggrieved by the Rs 48.31 lakh compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Mumbai on November 20, 2009 based on his application in 2005, the claimant filed an appeal in the high court.

The bench observed, “The loss of earning capacity of the claimant is 100%… Paraplegia also impacts the marital life of the spouse, who inevitably becomes the main caretaker or caregiver and, in the process, shared vows, friendship, intimacy and emotional support become a thing of the past… impaired mobility limits parenting responsibilities and results in depriving the children of guidance, love, care and affection of the parent… Paraplegia of the sole bread earner also puts infirm parents in a helpless situation.”

It added, “Monetary compensation howsoever high cannot rebuild the life of the victim or reduce his physical or mental trauma. It cannot restore the shattered dreams of the spouse, bring back lost childhood of the children or relieve the agony of the parents of seeing their child in a vegetative state.”

The court also took note of various requirements, including an attendant for the remainder of the victim’s life, expenses towards water bed, wheelchair, crutches, and a high protein, multivitamin and fibre diet.

The respondent Oriental Insurance Company Ltd opposed the plea denying that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The court directed the insurance firm to deposit the amount and dismissed its appeal.