Case: Sanjay Batham Vs. Munnalal Parihar

3. The appellant, who sustained grievous injuries on the head, right shoulder, back bone and other parts of the body in an accident which occurred on 9.5.1996, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act) for award of compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/with interest. The claim of the appellant was founded on the followingThat the accident occurred when the scooter on which he was travelling along with his friend Sunil was hit by truck No.near Sikaria Workshop at AB Road, Gwalior.(ii) That the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.Parihar.(iii) That he was rushed to Madhav Dispensary from where he was shifted to J.A.H. Hospital. He was operated for fracture on his head, broken piece of the bone was removed and 22 stitches were given on his head.(iv) That due to injury on the head, left part of his body was paralyzed and he was not able to do the work which he was doing prior to accident.(v) That the prospects of his marriage had been considerably reduced and he will not be able to lead normal life.The owner and the driver of the truck did not contest the claim petition. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.National Insurance Co. Ltd., all possible objections were raised and it was pleaded that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and, in any case, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation because the driver of the truck did not have a valid driving licence.5. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1. The Tribunal then considered the evidence of Dr. N. D. Vayas, Head of Neurosurgery Department of J.A.H. Hospital and the disability certificate Ex.which revealed that the appellant had suffered 45% temporary disability in his left hand and proceeded to award compensation under the following heads:1. Loss of earning Rs.>3. Pain and sufferingThe Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation.6. On an appeal filed by the appellant, the learned Single Judge of the High Courtthe evidence produced by the parties and determined the amount of compensation by taking the appellants income to be Rs. 1500/per month. He assessed the disability of appellant to be 50% and held that loss of earning would be Rs. 750/per month. The learned Single Judge applied the multiplier of 16 and concluded that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/in lieu of the loss of earning. The learned Single Judge also awarded Rs. 50,000/for treatment and Rs. 56,000/for pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects. However, the rate of interest was reduced from 9% to 7% per annum.

Court's reasoning:
14. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the appellant was earning Rs.50/per day by doing the work as an unskilled labourer with Raj Gas Agency. It is also not in dispute that as a result of accident, the appellant suffered injuries on different parts of body including the head and after operation left portion of his body, i.e. left hand and left leg got paralyzed and as a result of that he will not be in a position to do the work which he was doing before the accident. In his deposition, Dr. N.D. Vayas, Head of Neurosurgery Department, J.A.H. Hospital, who treated the appellant before and after the operation, stated that left portion of the appellants body was paralyzed but after treatment there was slight improvement in his condition. Dr. Vayas then gave out that the appellant will require further treatment for paralysis. The learned Single Judge, who had the occasion to see the appellant in the Court, found that he was not in a position to move his left hand and left leg. He assessed the disability to be 50% and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, he committed an error by applying the multiplier of 16 ignoring that at the time of accident, the appellants age was only 20 years. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 , this Court has considered several issues including the application of correct multiplier and heldtherefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that isfor 26 to 30 years,for 31 to 35 years,for 36 to 40 years,for 41 to 45 years, andfor 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is,for 51 to 55 years,for 56 to 60 years,for 61 to 65 years andfor 66 to 70.15. Although, the appellant had suffered temporary disablement, the evidence of the doctor shows that he will require treatment in future. The Tribunal and the High Court have not awarded any compensation for future treatment, which would necessarily include doctors fee, cost of medicine, transportation, diet, etc. Keeping in view the high cost of living, we feel that ends of justice will be served by awarding a lump sum amount of Rs. 2 lacs for future treatment.16. The award made by the High Court for pain, suffering and trauma and in lieu of loss of the prospects of marriage is wholly inadequate. The appellant, who suffered paralysis on left part of the body will neither be able to work as a labourer nor he will be able to lead a normal life. His marriage prospects are also bleak. A normal girl will, in all probability, not like to marry a disabled person. Therefore, it is apposite to award reasonable and just compensation to the appellant for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life which, in our view, should be Rs.2 lacs.17. It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 , in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of anthe Indian context several other factors should be taken into consideration including education of the dependants and the nature of job. In the wake of changed societal conditions and global scenario, future prospects may have to be taken into consideration not only having regard to the status of the employee, his educational qualification; his past performance but also other relevant factors, namely, the higher salaries and perks which are being offered by the private companies these days. In fact while determining the multiplicand this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben held that even dearness allowance and perks with regard thereto from which the family would have derived monthly benefit, must be taken into consideration.