JITHENDRAN versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 147, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
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
E
F
G
H
149
treatment and further hospitalisation for which, considerable
expenses were incurred even after the initial 191 days of
hospitalization. As a person suffering severe cognitive impairment
and 69% disability, recurring medical treatment is inevitable and
bearing in mind the additional expenses already incurred, it is
deemed appropriate to enhance the future medical expenses to
Rs.3,00,000/- (from Rs.1,00,000/-), since the sum quantified
by the High Court appears to be on the lower side. [Para 9]
[154-F-G]
3. While the permanent disability as certified by the doctors
stands at 69%,the same by no means, adequately reflects the
travails the impaired claimant will have to face all his life. The 21
year old’s youthful dreams and future hopes were snuffed out by
the serious accident. The young man’s impaired condition has
certainly impacted his family members. Their resources and
strength are bound to be stressed by the need to provide full
time care to the claimant. For the appellant to constantly rely on
them for stimulation and support is destined to cause emotional,
physical and financial fatigue for all stakeholders. [Para 10]
[154-G-H; 155-A-B]
4. 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. [Para 11]
[155-B-C, D-E]
Jagdish v. Mohan and others (2018) 4 SCC 57 : [2018]
3 SCR 20; Helen C. Rebello and Others v. Maharashtra
SRTC and Anr. (1999) 1 SCC 90 : [1998] 1 Suppl.
SCR 684 – relied on.
5. 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. In cases of similar
nature, wherein the claimant is suffering severe cognitive
dysfunction and restricted mobility, the Courts should be mindful
of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at
JITHENDRAN v. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’s loss
of earning capacity is concerned. The extent of economic loss
arising from a disability may not be measured in proportions to
the extent of permanent disability. [Paras 12, 13][155-G;
156-A-B]
Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda v. Divisional
Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited (2020)
1 SCC 796 : [2019] 14 SCR 556; Raj Kumar v. Ajay
Kumar and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2011] 1 SCC 343
– relied on.
6. The impact on the earning capacity for the claimant by
virtue of his 69% disability must not be measured as a
proportionate loss of his earning capacity. The earning life for
the appellant is over and as such his income loss has to be
quantified as 100%. There is no other way to assess the earning
loss since the appellant is incapacitated for life and is confined to
home. 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,the monthly loss of earning is
quantified as Rs.6,300/-. Therefore, compensation for 100% loss
of earning for the claimant is quantified at Rs.13,60,800/-
(Rs.6,300 x 12 x 18). Accordingly, under this head, the amount
awarded by the High Court is enhanced proportionately.
[Para 16][159-A-C]
7. The lesser amount for 6 months earning loss during
hospitalization, must also be corrected. The claimant was awarded
Rs.12,000/- for his
hospitalization in the aftermath of the accident.
But the lower figure does 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).
[Para 17][159-D]
8. In cases such as this, the Tribunal and the Courts must
be conscious of the fact that the permanent disability suffered by
the individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his
physical facilities but there are multiple other non-quantifiable
implications for the victim. The very fact that a healthy person
turns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the
loss of self-dignity. The efforts must be to substantially ameliorate
the misery of the claimant and recognize his actual needs by
accounting for the ground realities. The measures should however
be in correct proportion. [Para 19][159-G-H; 160-A-B]
Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and others
(2020) SCC Online 752; Sarla Verma and Others v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6
SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2020) 4 SCC 413
relied on
para 8
[1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 684
relied on
para 11
[2018] 3 SCR 20
relied on
para 11
[2011] 1 SCC 343
relied on
para 13
[2019] 14 SCR 556  
relied on
para 14
[2009] 5 SCR 1098
relied on
para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6494 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2018 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in MACA. No.2841 of 2008.
A. Karthik, Sajith P., Advs. for the Appellant.
JPN Shahi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Respondents.
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Karthik, learned counsel for the appellant
(claimant). Mr. JPN Shahi, learned counsel appears for the insurance
company (respondent no1).
2. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of a motor accident claim
following the serious injuries suffered by the appellant on 13.4.2001 when
the motor cycle (where the appellant was riding pillion), was hit by a car.
Both riders were impacted, resulting in severe head injuries to the
JITHENDRAN v. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
appellant. He was bedridden, totally immobilized and initially, remained
admitted in  the hospital for 191 days. The appellant has also suffered
severe impairment of cognitive power with hemiparesis and total
aphasiaand the prognosis for him is 69% permanent disability.
3. The claim filed by the pillion riding appellant was analogously
considered with other claimantsfrom the same accident,by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the
Tribunal’ for short).The Presiding Officer noticed that the severely
impaired pillion rider needed support of two persons,holding him from
either side and because of his diminished cognitive facilities, the claimant
appeared to be oblivious to his surroundings before the Tribunal. He
could only partially close his mouth and consequently saliva dribbled
from his mouth. The Tribunal judge noted that the claimant was 21 years
old and was earning around Rs.4,500/- per month from jewellery work
when he suffered the accident. Considering these factors and applying
the multiplier of 17, the payable compensation for the pillion riderwas
determined as Rs.5,74,320/- by the Tribunal.
4. Dissatisfied with the awarded sum, the claimant moved the
High Court of Kerala for higher compensation. With court’s permission,
the claimant produced three discharge summaries, 40 medical bills
(totalling Rs.68,196/-) and 3 medical reports issued by the hospital where
the
partially disabled claimant received further treatment.Those were
considered together with the fact that Rs. 4,500/- p.m. was the earning
of the claimant as a jewellery worker for which, 40% as future prospect
needed to be added.The additional medical expenses incurred for further
treatment after the initial 191 days of hospitalization was taken into
account and,towards future treatment,Rs.1,00,000/- was added. The
nature of permanent disability of 69% was then factored in under
the relevant head and the High Court quantified a higher sum of
Rs.9,38,952/- (instead of Rs.2,81,520/-) as compensation.Thusadditional
compensation for permanent disability to the tune of Rs.8,57,432/- was
quantified by the High Court, beyond the Rs.5,74,320/- determined by
the Tribunal for the pillion rider.
5. The chart below would indicate the compensation quantified
by the Tribunal and the High Court, under different heads:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
6. The learned counsel Mr. A. Karthik for the appellant underscores
that the claimant has suffered 69% permanent disability and is unable to
perform everyday activities and he requires constant support even for
the confined life that he is leading. Accordingly earnest plea is made for
adding expenses for service of bystander/attendant for the severely
impaired claimant.
6.1 Since additional recurring medical exigencies are necessitated
and expenses are incurred for regular medical treatment even after the
accident, based upon the bills and hospital documents produced before
the High Court, the appellant’s counsel argues for substantial enhancement
of the sum awarded under the head of future medical expenses.
6.2 Because the appellant’searning capacity is reduced to zero,
(notwithstanding his 69% permanent disability), the logic of restricting
the compensation to 69% under the head of permanent disability is
questioned and Mr. Karthik, the learned counsel submits that the correct
figure should be reached by treating it as 100% loss of future earnings.
6.3 Considering the fact that the injured appellant was hospitalized
for 191 days and was off work, the lower quantification of his six months
loss of earning at Rs.12,000/-, when income is accepted as Rs. 4500/-, is
questioned by the appellant’s counsel and he argues that the loss of
earning should be quantified at Rs.27,000/- (instead of Rs.12,000/-,) under
the relevant head.
7. On the other hand, Mr. JPN
Shahi, the learned counsel appearing
for the Insurance Company submits that when 69% percent permanent
disability is suffered, the sum quantified by the High Court at 69% level,
requires no enhancement.
Head
Tribunal
High Court
Loss of earning
12,000/-
12,000/-
Expense for transportation
10,000/-
10,000/-
Extra-nourishment
10,000/-
10,000/-
Damage to clothing
500/-
500/-
Expenses for treatment
1,40,300/-
1,40,300/-
Expense for bystander
50,000/-
50,000/-
Compensation for pain and suffering
50,000/-
1,00,000/-
Compensation for permanent disability
2,81,500/-
9,38,952/-
Loss for loss of amenities
20,000/-
70,000/-
Future medical expenses
NIL
1,00,000/-
Total
5,74,320/-
14,31,752/-
JITHENDRAN V. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
7.1 It is further pointed out by the learned counsel that the High
Court has already awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical
expenses and the appellant is disentitled to claim any further sum on the
said count.
7.2 Insofar as the claim for expenses for a bystander/attendant,
the learned counsel submits that no material is produced by the claimant
on the actual expenses incurred for service of attendant and accordingly
it is argued that no further claim is merited under this head.
8. As earlier noted, 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, thepresiding 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 and what was said in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and
Others1, 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/-.
9. The appellant has produced adequate medical documents before
the High Court to show the recurring needs for testing, treatment and
further hospitalisation for which, considerable expenses were incurred
even after the initial 191 days of hospitalization. As a person suffering
severe cognitive impairment and 69% disability, recurring medical
treatment is inevitable and bearing in mind the additional expenses already
incurred, we deem it appropriate to enhance the future medical expenses
to Rs.3,00,000/- (from Rs.1,00,000/-), since the sum quantified by the
High Court appears to be on the lower side.
10. While the permanent disability as certified by the doctors stands
at 69%,the same by no means, adequately reflects the travails the impaired
claimant will have to face all his life. The 21 year old’s youthful dreams
1 (2020) 4 SCC 413
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
155
and future hopes were snuffed out by the serious accident. The young
man’s impaired condition has certainly impacted his family members.
Their resources and strength are bound to be stressed by the need to
provide full time care to the claimant. For the appellant to constantly rely
on them for stimulation and support is destined to cause emotional,
physical and financial fatigue for all stakeholders.
11. 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. Justice A.P. Misra in Helen C. Rebello and Others
v. Maharashtra SRTC and Anr.2, held the following on the contours of
‘just’ compensation,
“The word “just”, as its nomenclature, denotes equitability, fairness
and reasonableness having a large peripheral field. The largeness
is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which
is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is termed as unfair,
unreasonable, unequitable, not just.”
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. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud speaking for a three judges’ bench in
Jagdish Vs. Mohan and others3 makes the following relevant
observation on the intrinsic value of human life and dignity that is attempted
to be recognised, through such
compensatory awards,
“…the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt
of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of
compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question
whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must
provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma
of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a
discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law.”
12. 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. In cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant
is suffering severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the
2 (1999) 1 SCC 90
3 (2018) 4 SCC 571
JITHENDRAN V. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
Courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability
is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’s
loss of earning capacity is concerned.
13. The extent of economic loss arising from a disability may not
be measured in proportions to the extent of permanent disability. This
aspect was noticed in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr.4, where
Justice R.V. Raveendran made the following apt observations:
“10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result
of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of
loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact
of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal
should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent
disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning
capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss,
that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a
permanent disability will be different from the percentage of
permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all
cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability
would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and
consequently, if the evidence produced shows 45% as the
permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future
earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent
(percentage) of loss of earning
capacity to the extent (percentage)
of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too
high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured;
and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money,
to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard
multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may
however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence
and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss
of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is
approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability
in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage
for determination of compensation.”
4 (2011)1 SCC 343
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
157
14. The test for determining the effect of permanent disability on
future earning capacity involves the following 3 steps as was laid down
in Raj Kumar5 and reiterated by Justice Indu Malhotra in Chanappa
Nagappa Muchalagoda vs.Divisional Manager, New India
Insurance Company Limited6.
“13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on
the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has
to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in
spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a
result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The
second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find
out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any
kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability,
the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and
functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he
was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities
and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of
activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue
to earn his livelihood.”
15. The above yardstick to be adopted in such exigencies was
reaffirmed by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat in Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh
Kumar and others7. The following
was set out by the three Judges’
Bench:
“13. The factual narrative discloses that the appellant, a 20-year-
old data entry operator (who had studied up to 12th standard)
incurred permanent disability, i.e. loss of his right hand (which
was amputated). The disability was assessed to be 89%. However,
the tribunal and the High Court re- assessed the disability to be
only 45%, on the assumption that the assessment for compensation
was to be on a different basis, as the injury entailed loss of only
one arm. This approach, in the opinion of this court, is completely
mechanical and entirely ignores realities. Whilst it is true that
assessment of injury of one limb or to one part may not entail
5 Ibid
6 (2020)1 SCC 796
7 (2020) SCC Online 752
JITHENDRAN V. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
permanent injury to the whole body, the inquiry which the court
has to conduct is the resultant loss which the injury entails to the
earning or income generating capacity of the claimant. Thus, loss
of one leg to someone carrying on a vocation such as driving or
something that entails walking or constant mobility, results in severe
income generating impairment or its extinguishment altogether.
Likewise, for one involved in a job like a carpenter or hairdresser,
or machinist, and an experienced one at that, loss of an arm, (more
so a functional arm) leads to near extinction of income generation.
If the age of the victim is beyond 40, the scope of rehabilitation
too diminishes. These individual factors are of crucial importance
which are to be borne in mind while determining the extent of
permanent disablement, for the purpose of assessment of loss of
earning capacity.”
“20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach,
but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of
life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and
compensation under various heads. In the present case, the loss
of an arm, in the opinion of the court, resulted in severe income
earning impairment upon the appellant. As a typist/data entry
operator, full functioning of his hands was essential to his livelihood.
The extent of his permanent disablement was assessed at 89%;
however, the High Court halved it to
45% on an entirely wrong
application of some ‘proportionate’ principle, which was illogical
and is unsupportable in law. What is to be seen, as emphasized by
decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income
generating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or
arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to
the profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be
a blind arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview
of the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent
that the income generating capacity of the appellant was
undoubtedly severely affected. Maybe, it is not to the extent of
89%, given that he still has the use of one arm, is young and as
yet, hopefully training (and rehabilitating) himself adequately for
some other calling. Nevertheless, the assessment of disability
cannot be 45%; it is assessed at 65% in the circumstances of this
case.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
159
16. As noted earlier, the impact on the earning capacity for the
claimant by virtue of his 69% disability must not be measured as a
proportionate loss of his earning capacity. The earning life for the appellant
is over and as such his income loss has to be quantified as 100%. There
is no other way to assess the earning loss since the appellant is
incapacitated for life and is confined to home. In such circumstances,
his loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100%.As his monthly
incomewas Rs.4,500/-, adding 40% future prospect thereto,the monthly
loss of earning is quantified as Rs.6,300/-. We therefore deem it
appropriate to quantify Rs.13,60,800/- (Rs.6,300 x 12 x 18) as
compensation for 100% loss of earning for the claimant. Accordingly,
under this head, the amount awarded by the High Court is enhanced
proportionately.
17. The lesser amount for 6 months earning loss during
hospitalization, must also be corrected. The claimant was awarded
Rs.12,000/- for his hospitalization in the aftermath of the accident. But
the lower figure does not correctly correspond to six monthsloss, 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).
18. Following the above conclusion, additional compensation is
found merited for the appellant and the same is ordered. The
payableamount under the four specific heads is indicated as under:
S No
Head
Amount claimed
1.
Expense for bystander
Rs.10,80,000/-
2.
Future Medical Expenses
Rs.3,00,000/-
3.
Compensation for permanent disability 
and loss of earning power
Rs.13,60,800/-
4.
Loss of earning
Rs. 27,000/-
5.
Total
Rs.27,67,800/-
The above quantified sum should be paid by the first respondent,
within six weeks from today. Any amount paid earlier under these heads,
may be adjusted during payment to the appellant. It is ordered accordingly.
19. Before parting, it needs emphasizing that in cases such as
this, the Tribunal and the Courts must be conscious of the fact that the
permanent disability suffered by the individual not only impairs his
cognitive abilities and his physical facilities but there are multiple other
non-quantifiable implications for the victim. The very fact that a healthy
JITHENDRAN V. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
person turns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship,
and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss of
self-dignity. Such a Claimant must not be viewed as a modern day Oliver
Twist, having to make entreaties as the boy in the orphanage in Charles
Dickens’s classic, “Please Sir, I want some more”. The efforts must be
to substantially ameliorate the misery of the claimant and recognize his
actual needs by accounting for the ground realities. The measures should
however be in correct proportion. As is aptly said by Justice R.V
Raveendran, while speaking for the Division Bench in Sarla Verma and
Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another8, just
compensation is adequate compensation and the Award must be just
that- no less and no more. The plea of the victim suffering from a cruel
twist of fate, when asking for some more, is not extravagant but is for
seeking appropriate recompense to negotiate with the unforeseeable and
the fortuitous twists is his impaired life. Therefore, while the money
awarded by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured
victim (who is deprived of the normal amenities of life and suffers the
unease of being a burden on others), the courts can make a genuine
attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding
‘just compensation’.
20. With the above observation and enhancement of compensation,
the claimant’s appeal
stands allowed. The impugned judgment of the
High Court stands modified to the extent indicated above. The parties to
bear their respective cost.
8 (2009) 6 SCC 121
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.