‘Face disfigurement would affect marriage prospects’: Gujarat High Court raises 2006 accident victim’s compensation
Holding that Rs 35,000 was a "meagre" amount for a Kutch bus accident survivor facing permanent facial scarring, the Gujarat High Court nearly tripled the payout.
The Gujarat High Court placed particular emphasis on the claimant’s age and social circumstances. (File photo) The Gujarat High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to a 2006 bus accident survivor, holding that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) had granted only a “meagre amount” for loss of amenities and facial disfigurement.
In a judgment made available on May 8, Justice Mool Chand Tyagi enhanced the compensation payable to Osman Sama, now 42, from Rs 35,000 to Rs 1.35 lakh under the heads of loss of amenities, enjoyment of life, and facial disfigurement in the 2006 road accident in Kutch.
Taking into account the “totality of the facts and circumstances,” the High Court recalculated the total compensation at Rs. 1.55 lakh and awarded an additional Rs. 1 lakh over and above the amount already granted by the Tribunal, along with 7.5 per cent annual interest.
Partly allowing the appeal, the court directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bhuj, had partly allowed the claim petition in 2013 and awarded compensation of Rs. 55,000 with 7.5 per cent interest. Sama had challenged the quantum of compensation, seeking enhancement.
The court placed particular emphasis on the claimant’s age and social circumstances, noting that he was unmarried at the time of the accident. “The disfigurement of the face would also affect the marriage prospects of the (petitioner),” said Justice Tyagi.
The accident and its consequences
The case arose from a July 24, 2006, accident in which Sama, then 22, suffered serious facial injuries while travelling in a luxury bus that allegedly collided with another vehicle due to rash and negligent driving. The accident left him with grievous injuries, including a fracture of the left mandible and facial soft tissue injuries.
Sama’s counsel, H M Modi, argued that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider the impact of the injuries and his client’s medical condition. Modi submitted that at the time of the accident, Sama worked as a driver earning Rs. 3,000 per month. He argued that the Tribunal had failed to consider future prospects and had ignored medical evidence certifying “functional disability of 16% body as a whole”.
Sama also contended that despite the seriousness of the injuries, no compensation had been awarded under the head of future loss of income.
Modi said Sama continues to suffer the consequences of the accident. To date, he is unable to bite large objects as his mouth has restricted movement and opens partially. The facial disfigurement has been permanent, and there is a wound mark on his face too,” he said.
“The case is viewed by the court from the perspective of the petitioner when he was 22 years old and had a whole life ahead of him… In the present day, I do not have instructions on whether the petitioner eventually married or not and whether he had to compromise on the aspect of living his life as any other normal individual.”
Opposing the appeal, the insurance company argued that although the claimant had suffered fracture injuries to the jaw and face, there was no actual “functional disability” affecting his ability to work as a driver. The insurer submitted that the Tribunal had therefore rightly restricted compensation to the head of “loss of enjoyment and amenities of life”.
The Gujarat High Court agreed that the injuries did not affect the claimant’s earning capacity and observed that “the fracture of the left mandible would not affect his working capacity in working as a driver” and found “no infirmity” in the Tribunal’s refusal to grant compensation towards future loss of income. However, the court found the compensation granted for facial disfigurement and loss of amenities to be “inadequate”.
“The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life and disfigurement of face,” Justice Tyagi observed.
Share
