The instant appeal arises out of a claim made by the appellant on account of the serious injuries suffered when the motorcycle where the appellant, riding pillion, was hit by a car. Both riders were injured severely. The appellants suffered severe impairment of cognitive power with hemiparesis and total aphasia and the prognosis for him is 69%permanent disability. On claim filed by the pillion riding appellant was considered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Presiding Officer observed that the pillion needed assistance of  two persons from both sides and the claimant appeared to be unknown in his surroundings because of his decreased cognitive facilities.  The Judge of the tribunal stated that when he suffered the accident the claimant had 21 years and earned about Rs4,500/- a month as  salary. Considering these factors, the pillion was awarded compensation of Rs.5,74,320/- by the Tribunal. Dissatisfied, the claimant moved the High Court of Kerala for higher compensation and additional 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.

The learned counsel Mr. A. Karthik, on behalf of the appellant urged that the claimant suffered 69% permanent disability requiring constant support even for the confined life that he is leading. Since, the appellants earning capacity has been reduced to zero, restricting the compensation to 69% under the head of permanent disability was questioned and submitted that that the correct figure should be reached by treating it as 100% loss of future earnings. Mr. JPN Shahi, the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance company, contended that the sum quantified by the High Court at 69% level, requires no enhancement.

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals

In the case in hand, 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. The permanent disability certified by the doctor at 69% reflects that the claimant will have to face the impaired condition throughout his life requiring full time care by his family members and constantly relying on them for support is bound to cause a financial burden for all the stakeholders. Compensation must be awarded having regard to the realities of life both in terms of assessing the extent of disabilities and its impact derailing the income generating capacity of the claimant.

Referring to Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr [(2011)1 SCC 343], the court has laid down the test for determining the effect of permanent disability on future earning capacity,  and held “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 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”. 

Therefore, the Supreme court was of the view that the earning capacity of the  appellant is lost for his life time and as such his income loss has to be quantified as 100% since the appellant is incapacitated for life and is confined to home. The court was of the opinion that 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, and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss of self-dignity.  Hence, the claimants appeal stands allowed.