JITHENDRAN versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 147 · Decided: 27-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
147
147
JITHENDRAN
v.
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR
(Civil Appeal No. 6494 of 2021)
OCTOBER 27, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Compensation – Motor accident –
Pillion rider – 21 years old at the time of accident – Earning Rs.
4500/- per month – Suffered severe head injuries and totally
immobilized and initially remained admitted in hospital for 191 days
– He also suffered severe impairment of cognitive power with
hemiparesis and total aphasia and the prognosis for him was 69%
permanent disability – Tribunal determined compensation at Rs.
5,74,320 by applying multiplier of 17 – High Court quantified a
higher sum of Rs. 9,38,952/- as compensation, by adding 40% as
future prospect, Rs.100,000 towards additional medical expenses
post hospitalization – In the instant appeal, claimant prayed for
adding expenses for services of attendant/bystander on the ground
that he was unable to perform day to day activities and requires
constant support even for the confined life that he is leading –
Held: The Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of social welfare
legislation and its provisions make it clear that the compensation
should be justly determined – A person, therefore, is not only to be
compensated for the injury suffered due to the accident but also
for the loss suffered on account of the injury and his inability to
lead the life he led, prior to the life altering event – In the instant
case, claimant with seriously impaired cognitive and physical
capabilities would be needing full time assistance even for the
confined life that he is leading – The Presiding Judge in the Tribunal
had also noticed that the claimant would require the assistance of a
bystander/attendant for all his movements – In view of this, annual
expenses for the attendant is quantified at Rs.60,000/- and with
multiplier of 18, the additional compensation payable under the
bystander head would be Rs.10,80,000/- – Further, for a person
suffering severe cognitive impairment and 69% disability, recurring
medical treatment is inevitable and bearing in mind the additional
expenses already incurred, future medical expenses is enhanced to
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 147
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
Rs.3,00,000/- (from Rs.1,00,000/-) – In so far as claimant’s loss of
earning capacity was concerned, though the physical disability was
assessed at 69%, the functional disability was 100% – In such
circumstances, his loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100% –
As his monthly income was Rs.4,500/-, adding 40% future prospect
thereto, monthly loss of earning quantified as Rs.6,300/- – Thus,
compensation for 100% loss of earning for the claimant would be
Rs.13,60,800/- (Rs.6,300 x 12 x 18) – As regards 6 months earning
loss during hospitalization, claimant was awarded Rs.12,000/- for
his hospitalization in the aftermath of the accident – But the lower
figure did not correctly correspond to six months loss, when the
income was Rs. 4500/- p.m. – Accordingly, the amount under this
head is corrected as Rs.27,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 6) – Total compensation
of Rs.27,67,800 ordered.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant has suffered 69% permanent
disability and without assistance, cannot perform everyday
functions. The claimant with seriously impaired cognitive and
physical capabilities would surely need full time assistance even
for the confined life that he is leading. In such circumstances, the
disabled claimant cannot be expected to rely only upon gratuitous
services of his well wishers and family members. Importantly,
the presiding judge in the Tribunal himself noticed that the
claimant would require the assistance of a bystander/attendant
for all his movements. Consequently, bearing in mind the need
for assisted living it is found necessary to add the expenses for
service of an attendant for the claimant. Since no material is
produced to quantify the expenses for the attendant, making a
conservative estimate, Rs.5,000/- per month appears to be the
bare minimum. It is therefore deemed appropriate to quantify
the annual expenses at Rs.60,000/- and applying the multiplier of
18, the additional compensation payable under the bystander head
is quantified at Rs.10,80,000/-. [Para 8][154-C-E]
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others (2020) 4 SCC 413
– relied on.
2. The appellant has produced adequate medical documents
before the High Court to show the recurring needs for testing,
A
B
C
D

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.