Mohd Sabeer Vs Regional Manager (Supreme Court of India)
Conclusion: The Hon’ble Supreme Court while enhancing the compensation in the case of permanent disability caused to accident, held that while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability caused to claimants, the courts must look at the case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic background of the claimants.
Facts: The present appeals are directed against the final order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Review Petition No. 391 of 2018 and against the impugned final judgment dated 11.09.2018 passed by the High Court of New Delhi.
The Appellant, was travelling in a bus, the driver of the bus, who is the Respondent No.1 therein was driving in a rash and negligent manner. At around 12:30 am, in Ghaziabad, the Respondent no.1 driver hit a standing tempo which was parked on the left side of the road. As a result of this accident, the Appellant and the other passengers in the bus received grave injuries all over their bodies. The Appellant was aged 37 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. As per the Disability Certificate, the Appellant suffered permanent disability of 70%, his right lower limb amongst other injuries.
The Appellant after the accident filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Delhi-II, Dwarka Court, New Delhi claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs). The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,76,465/- to the Appellant along with 7.5% interest per annum. The Appellant then filed MAC App. No. 444/2013 before the High Court of Delhi on grounds that the Ld. MACT did not calculate the loss of earning capacity, future prospects and wrong computation of the Appellant’s disability.
The High Court modified the award passed by the Ld. MACT and disposed of the Appeal by enhancing the compensation to Rs.16,70,932/- with 9% interest per annum.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Appellant has suffered permanent disability of 70% and has an amputated right lower limb amongst other injuries. It was observed that the High Court has wrongly taken the view that the Appellant has only suffered 35% functional disability. The Appellant is not a salaried person but is self-employed who manages his business. For the Appellant to be able to augment his income, he is most definitely required to move around. The Appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility further. This proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35% functional disability calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case and in our view the loss of future earning capacity must be calculated at 60%.
Further it was observed that the High Court has not applied the quantum for future prospect in the compensation granted. In its reasoning, the High Court has stated that the Income tax returns relied upon by the Appellant show that despite the injury the Appellant’s income had subsequently increased and hence it cannot be said that there is a loss of future earnings.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability caused to claimants, the courts must look at the case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic background of the claimants. The Appellant herein comes from an economically weaker section of the society. It is almost universally seen that persons from marginalized backgrounds often face an additional layer of discrimination due to bodily disabilities. This is because persons from marginalized sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination. In such circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice, it becomes the duty of the Court to at the very least restore the claimant as best as possible to the position he was in before the occurrence of the disability, and to do so must award compensation in a liberal manner.
While no material compensation can completely negate the trauma and suffering that the injured and his family faces, the law only knows the language of monetary compensation in such cases. It then becomes to duty of the court to translate the provisions of monetary compensation into a fabrication that helps the injured and his family in coping with their loss.
On the basis of the abovementioned facts and analysis, the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,70,120/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of making the application.
Accordingly, the appeals were allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
