Appeal by insurance company against motorcycle accident compensation award for a child in vegetative state. High Court upheld compensation amount as just and reasonable but reduced interest rate from 7% to 6% per annum.
Compensation amount remains undisturbed; interest rate reduced from 7% per annum to 6% per annum from the date of petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:20732-DB MFA No. 4342 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4342 OF 2018(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISINAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, MALLAPPA COMPLEX, BH ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMTED, 2ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS NO.9/2, M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. GEETHA R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, CONDIMENTS BUSINESS, RESIDING IN KEB COLONY, VINOBANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KASHINATH J. D., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R1 - MINOR, REP. BY GUARDIAN/ FATHER; R2- SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSDED WITH V/O. DATED 17.12.2021)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.01.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1142/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT-VI, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.42,79,000/- WITH INTEREST THEREON AT THE RATE OF 7% P.A. ON RS.39,79,000/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J . , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The issue involved for adjudication in this appeal is the compensation which can be termed to be just and reasonable that can be awarded to a boy aged about 6 years, who met with a road traffic accident and went into vegetative state due to the injury sustained which position as per the opinion of the doctor who treated him continues through out his life.
disability is 100% and that there is requirement of incurring medical expenditure in future. But without considering these aspects, the tribunal awarded an exorbitant sum under all heads and therefore, the amount thus awarded requires to be reduced.
5. Vehemently opposing the submission thus
made, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the boy aged about six years, who met with an accident went into unconscious state immediately after the accident and though he was got treated by taking him to different hospitals and though he was kept as inpatient at hospitals on six different occasions, he could not attain normality and the amount of sufferance which the child is bearing cannot be described. Learned counsel further submits that the child requires an attendant to take care of him for his entire life. Learned counsel also contends that the child cannot even attend his calls of nature, at least move his leg without the support of any other person, cannot take his bath and cannot attend any other normal activities and
all the activities should be monitored and done by some other person and therefore, for the entire life the boy requires medical attendance as well as an attendant to take care of him and thus, considering all these aspects, the tribunal has awarded a just sum as compensation and therefore the award of the Tribunal needs no interference.
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, is that 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the figure arrived at which is awarded as compensation under the head loss of earning capacity i.e., Rs.19,44,000/- needs no interference.
| Sl. No |
Description | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pain and sufferings | Rs.3,60,000 |
| 2 | Medical expenses | Rs.3,50,000 |
| 3 | Future medical expenses | Rs.3,00,000 |
| 4 | Loss of amenities of life and expectation of life |
Rs.3,60,000 |
| 5 | Loss of educational prospects |
Rs.2,00,000 |
| 6 | Attendant charges throughout life |
Rs.5,00,000 |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Conveyance, food and attendant charges during hospitalization period |
Rs.2,00,000 |
| 8 | Loss of future earning capacity |
Rs.19,44,000 |
| 9 | Loss of marital prospects | Rs.75,000/- |
| Total Compensation | Rs.42,89,000 |
no blood clots were found and the fracture to jaw bone must be treated. However jaw bone plates got infected and thereafter, they were removed. He also deposed that at the time of discharge the boy was conscious but he was unable to talk. The doctor stated that he was admitted for the second time and he was compliant of deterioration of neurological status and he was admitted for the third time and when operation was conducted and again he was admitted for the subsequent occasions and treatment was given. The doctor further deposed that the boy was found with no independent mobility and he had to be carried by an attendant. He had no capacity to communicate and his condition even after five years of injury did not improve. The doctor further stated that it is unlikely that he will improve neurological status in future. The child has no control over his bowel and bladder functions and he requires an attendant to feed and look after his daily needs. He also deposed that the child is in persistent vegetative state.
dependent on others. We cannot expect the parents to take care of the child, as no one can presume that the parents will live till the life time of the child. Also in the light of the incapacity and incapability of the child to perform his own functions, one cannot expect that he on attaining the age of majority would be in a position to marry and lead marital life. The Doctor i.e., Cw.1 has clearly stated that claimant is in persistent vegetative state. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal can neither be termed to be exorbitant nor excessive. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion of this Court is that in this appeal lacks merits and hence to be dismissed so far as award of the compensation is concerned.
NC: 2024:KHC:20732-DB MFA No. 4342 of 2018
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation of Rs. 42,79,00/- awarded to a child in a vegetative state by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is exorbitant or excessive?
Whether the rate of interest on the awarded compensation should be maintained at 7% per annum or be reduced?
Whether the notional income and multiplier used for calculating loss of future earnings for a child require revisiting?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and OthersApplied¶7
2017 ACJ 2700
Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and AnotherReferred¶10
2022 SCC Online SC 375 · Who else cites this
The New India Assurance Company Limited
Master Shobith
Shri B. C. Basvaraja
K. Somashekara
Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
