Case: Afnees (Unconscious) Rep. Thr Mother Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vadakara &amp; Others

es (unconscious), through his mother, has approached this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company and reduced the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadakara (for short, the Tribunal) from Rs. 10,88,800/by applying a multiplier of 16 as the claimant was aged 19 at the relevant time and further partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and awarded Rs. 1 lakh towards future treatment3. In the petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), which came to be registered as OP (MV) No.575 of 2007, the appellant prayed for award of compensation to the tune of Rs.. The appellants claim was founded on the following assertions:(i) That the appellant had suffered grievous injuries in an accident which occurred on 28.12.2006 when his motor cycle was hit by a jeep driven in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed(ii) That he was initially treated at MCH, Calicut from where he was shifted to Indo American Hospital Brain and Spine Centre, Vaikom. He remained in the hospital from 28.12.2006 to 11.02.2007 and 28.02.2007 to 15.03.2007. Due to the accident, the appellant was totally bed ridden and is in a coma (vegetative) stage and the medical board assessed his disability at 100 per cent. His treatment still continues with no improvement and may be in the same position for his remaining life(iii) That at the time of accident his age was about 19 years and he was doinge job as a sales man drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/(iv) That on account of the accident, he is fully dependent for all activities of daily life(v) He is from a poor family and his parents, being labourers, cannot afford the treatment expenses4. After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving. The respondenty admitted the valid insurance coverage over the offending jeep as on the date of accident and has not proved any violation of policy terms and conditions by driver and the owner. Hence, the above compensation is to be paid by the insurance company. The Tribunal then referred to the Second Schedule of the Act and determined the amount of compensation by assuming the appellants income to be Rs.3,000/per month. The Tribunal was of the view that due to 100% disability, the appellant would suffer loss of income to the tune of Rs.36,000/per annum. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 18 and held that the appellant is entitled to Rs.6,48,000/towards permanent disability. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads amounts to Rs. 10,88,800/5. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% on the total compensation and directed the respondent insurance company to pay the same from the date of filing of the petition till realisation6. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company also preferred an appeal seeking reduction of compensation7. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the insurance company and held that the multiplier of 16 should have been adopted instead of 18 as the claimant was aged 19 at the material time and reduced the compensation amount to Rs.. The High Court further partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and awarded Rs. 1 lakh towards future treatment when the claimant is in a coma stage.

Court's reasoning:
This Court has, from time to time, expressed concern over the increasing number of motor accidents and pendency of large number of cases involving adjudication of claims made by the legal representatives of the deceased as also by those who suffer permanent injuries and disabilities of various types as a result of accidents18. In our view, considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is fairly educated, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have earned at least Rs.3,000/per month taking into account the disability of the petitioner to be 100%, the Tribunal rightly awarded the multiplier of 18 and came to a figure of Rs. 6,48,000/and the High Court is wrong in allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company assessing the disability compensation at Rs. 5,76,000/by adopting the multiplier of 1619. Though the appellant had claimed an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/under different heads as compensation, the Tribunal has granted a meagre sum of Rs. 10,88,000/and the High Court further reduced the compensation amount. We are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh awarded by the High Court for future treatment was wholly inadequate as the High Court without considering the fact that the appellant because of the accident has to remain in the bed in his remaining life and he needs a person for his care and caution every time