Urviben Chiragbhai Sheth vs Vijaybhai Shambhubhai Joranputra & Ors

3. On 18.5.1990, the appellant and others were going in a Fiat car (No. GGG 792), owned by the second respondent, from Surat to Ubhrat. The said car was driven by the first respondent, who lost control of the car and dashed the car with full force against a milestone, after 1 which the car turned turtle thrice. As a result, the occupants of the car sustained serious injuries.

4. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. At the time of the accident, she was aged 30 years and she claimed to be earning Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,600/-

5. Before the MACT it was established that the first respondent was absolutely liable for the accident in view of his careless, rash and negligent driving. Thus, the first respondent (driver), second respondent (owner of the car) and the third respondent (insurance company with which the car was insured) were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant. In the accident, 2 the spinal cord of the appellant was damaged, as a result of which she was unable to walk and was bedridden. In computing the compensation payable to the appellant, the MACT, by order dated 23.3.2001, reached a finding that the compensation had been computed with the consent of the parties.

7. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the MACT, the appellant appealed to the High Court for enhancement of compensation. The High Court, vide order dated 6.7.2005, dismissed the appeal on the following ground:

27. Now the question which arises is whether the matter should be remanded by this Court?

Having regard to the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter should not be remanded, keeping in mind the period which has elapsed in between since the accident took place in 1990, and the fact that the appellant had been bedridden since then.

28. Admitted evidence about her medical disabilities is that she has 100% disability which is permanent in nature with no sign of recovery.

30. Assuming the appellant is not running the parlour, the fact remains that she has two 14 children and her husband died prior to the incident. Therefore, the dependence of the children and the running of the family is to be shouldered by her even though she is infirm and bedridden. She also needs someone to help her in her daily life. She has to have recurring medical expenses.

32. It is an accepted principle that compensation may be so assessed that the interest accruing therefrom will be sufficient for the maintenance of the family of the victim and the concept of compensation is wider than mere damages.

33. Considering all this, we grant compensation of Rs.15 lacs (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) with interest at the rate of 8% on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing the claim petition before MACT till date of realization.

34. Compensation on the aforesaid basis must be paid to the concerned MACT by the respondents within six weeks by a demand draft. Thereupon the MACT shall forthwith deposit the same in the bank account of the appellant.

35. The appeal is thus allowed.

36. No order as to costs.