Supreme Court increases compensation for parents of teen killed in road accident, cites ‘pain and suffering’

Calling the compensation of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal “meagre” the bench noted it had initially granted Rs 1.29 lakh, which the high court enhanced to Rs 4.7 lakh.

“The child had died after a day and hence the parents would be entitled to some compensation for the pain and suffering suffered by the child on his death; which inure to the benefit of the legal heirs, which we compute at Rs 25,000,” the bench said while granting Rs 8.65 total compensation to the parents.

Allowing the appeal of the parents, the court said the amount should be paid to the parents, after deducting the amount already paid, within two months from the date of the order “with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent”.

Finding

Distinguishing the case at hand from precedents of cases involving injured, disabled children, the bench said, “Here the child died and the claim of compensation by the parents would definitely stand on a different footing from that of a claim filed by a disabled child, destined to live the rest of his/her life with a debilitating condition of mental retardation and severe incontinence.”

The court opined that the monthly notional income can be adopted according to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – a computation the counsel of the parents and the insurance company agreed on.

The bench added, “The provision of Rs 50,000 as medical expenses is retained. The claimants are further entitled to loss of estate and funeral expenses at the rate of Rs 15,000 each and loss of filial consortium at the rate of Rs 40,000 each.”

Arguments

Advocate John Mathew, representing the parents, argued that there was sufficient evidence produced before the court with respect to the earnings of persons who studied along with the victim, his contemporaries, who went on to take up different gainful employment.

He submitted that the criteria adopted by the high court was grossly inadequate.

Advocate Ranjan Kumar Pandey, who appeared for the insurance company, said he had no objection with respect to the minimum wages being adopted, but the multiplier had to be kept at 15 as laid down in the Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan top court ruling.

“As regards the cases where the age of the victim happens to be up to 15 years, we are of the considered opinion that in such cases irrespective of Section 163A or Section 166 under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule…should be followed,” the top court held on April 2, 2013.