The Supreme Court has increased compensation for two men injured in the same 2016 road accident in Kerala. It held that courts must look at how an injury actually affects a person’s life and earning power, not just the percentage on a medical certificate. A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed the appeals of Sunil Kumar, represented by his wife, and Sreejith K.S. against IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
Background
On 22 October 2016, Sreejith was riding a scooter with Sunil as pillion rider on the Thrissur-Kodara road, near Paliyekkara toll plaza. Another scooter allegedly came in a rash and negligent manner and hit them. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, awarded Rs 19,91,954 to Sunil and Rs 16,03,400 to Sreejith, with 8% interest. The Kerala High Court raised these to Rs 36,22,644 and Rs 27,70,664. Both claimants said this was still too little and came to the Supreme Court.
Sunil, 43, suffered severe head injuries, including an open diffuse axonal injury and a midbrain contusion. The Medical Board had assessed his disability at 75.5%. The Court said:
“Therefore, even though the Medical Board certified the medical disability to be 75.5%, the functional effect can be said to be debilitating for the appellant to the extent of 100%. One who remains dependent on another and requires an attendant throughout his life can be said to be suffering from 100% functional disability. The appellant would not be able to do his own work, much less engage in earning activity for himself and his family, leading to total loss of working capacity.”
The Court relied on earlier rulings, including Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which stresses a realistic approach:
“The courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant.”
Using a monthly income of Rs 15,000, 25% future prospects and a multiplier of 14, the Court fixed loss of earning capacity at Rs 31,50,000. Following Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, it also calculated attendant charges by the multiplier method, awarding Rs 25,20,000 instead of Rs 1,00,000.
Sreejith, 22, had a 62% medical disability from fractures of both hands and a brachial plexus injury. The Court assessed his functional disability at 80%. With a notional income of Rs 10,500, 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 18, it awarded Rs 25,40,160 for permanent disability.
It also granted Rs 22,68,000 for attendant charges, Rs 8,00,000 for future medical expenses and Rs 5,00,000 for loss of marriage prospects.
