MASTER AYUSH versus THE BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 29-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 831
831
MASTER AYUSH
v.
THE BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2205-2206 of 2022)
MARCH 29, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles – Compensation – Appellant met with accident
as a five year old boy in 2010 – He suffered injuries and became a
paraplegic patient – Appellant not able to move his both legs and
having complete sensory loss in the legs, urinary incontinence and
bowel constipation and bed sore – Rs. 18,24,000/- awarded as
compensation by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – High Court
reduced compensation to Rs.13,46,805/- – On appeal, held: In terms
of the State Notification, the minimum wages payable to a skilled
workman as on the date of the accident was about Rs.3700/- –
Compensation, therefore, was to be assessed on the basis of the
said minimum wages on the assumption that appellant would have
been able to earn after attaining majority – In addition to skilled
minimum wages, appellant would be also entitled to 40% for future
prospects – Total compensation would be Rs.49,93,000/- (comprising
of Rs.11,18,880/- towards loss of future earnings due to permanent
disability for life; Rs.5,74,000/- towards medical expenses;
Rs.10,00,000/- towards future medical expenses; Rs.10,00,000/-
towards pain, suffering and loss of amenities; Rs.3,00,000/- towards
loss of marriage prospects, Rs.8,00,000/- towards one attendant
charges and Rs.2,00,000/- towards conveyance charges) along with
interest already awarded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High
Court i.e. 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application
till realization.
Motor Vehicles – Compensation – Just Compensation –
Determination of damages in personal injury cases – Held: Is not
easy – Mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of
money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by
payment of just compensation.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. In the present appeal, the minimum wages for
2010-11 in the State for employments not covered under any of
the scheduled employments can be ascertained from the
notification for minimum wages published in the Gazette on
19.02.2007. Hence, as per the same, the minimum wages payable
to a skilled workman in 2010-11 is to the tune of Rs. 3708.70. In
this view, the minimum wages as on the date of accident is rounded
off to Rs.3700/-. The compensation, therefore, is to be assessed
on the basis of the said minimum wages on the assumption that
the appellant would have been able to earn after attaining majority.
In addition to the skilled minimum wages, the appellant would be
also entitled to 40% for future prospects. Thus, the compensation
works out to be Rs.3700/- plus 40%, which amounts to
Rs. 5180/- per month. The multiplier of 18 would be applicable in
view of the age of the appellant. The loss of future earnings due
to the Permanent Disability for life thus works out to be
Rs.11,18,880/-, i.e., (3700+1480=5180) x 12 x 18. [Paras 7, 8, 9
and 10][838-F; 839-C-F]
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others (2020) 4 SCC 413
– distinguished.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (2017) 16  SCC 680: [2017] 13 SCR 100 –
relied on.
2. The determination of damages in personal injury cases
is not easy. The mental and physical loss cannot be computed in
terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the
victim except by payment of just compensation. Therefore, in
view of the physical condition, the appellant is entitled to one
attendant for the rest of his life though he may be able to walk
with the help of assistant device. The device also requires to be
replaced every 5 years. Therefore, it is reasonable to award cost
of 2 devices i.e., Rs.10 lakhs. The appellant has not only lost his
childhood but also adult life. Therefore, loss of marriage prospects
would also be required to be awarded. The Tribunal had rejected
the claim of taxi expenses for the reason that the taxi driver has
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
833
not been produced. It is impossible to produce the numerous
taxi drivers. Still further, the Tribunal should have realized the
condition of the child who had complete sensory loss in the legs.
Therefore, if the parents of the child have taken him in a taxi,
probably that was the only option available to them. Accordingly,
a sum of Rs.2 lakhs is awarded as conveyance charges.
[Para 12][840-A-D]
3. No compensation is

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