Reshma & Anr. v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors.

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’) Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in MACT No. 65/2018 by award dated 27th February 2020 whereby Rs.26,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition was awarded.

2. The accident occurred on 18th April 2016 near GT Road, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh (‘U.P.’), when the appellant/Reshma, mother of injured claimant/Rahul, who has otherwise suffered mental disability post the accident, was standing along with her children, when a tanker bearing registration no. HR-38T-6941, being driven by respondent no.2/driver, struck them causing grievous injuries to injured claimant/Rahul. He suffered 83% locomotor disability in respect of his whole body, 100% blindness and 90% mental retardation in respect of his whole body, as per the disability certificate.

3. Mr. Umesh Kumar, counsel for appellants, contends that the minimum wages of U.P. have been considered for assessment of benchmark income, whereas, there was no evidence on record to state that injured claimant/Rahul was either a resident of U.P. or was working in U.P. To the contrary, appellant/Reshma, mother, as well as, injured claimant/Rahul, have given their address at New Ganga Vihar, Gokalpuri, North East, Delhi- 110094, which is also evident from the Aadhaar Card filed before the MACT.

4. Reference may also be made to the testimony of appellant/Reshma as PW-1, where she had placed these documents on record. In her crossexamination, she stated that she had been living in Delhi for the last 10 to 15 years, her husband was working as a labourer in a toy-making factory in Gokulpuri and she was working as a maid servant. She had 3 children, Rahul, Shweta, and Himanshi, with whom she was travelling to her native village in Mainpuri, U.P, from Delhi, where the accident occurred. There is nothing in cross-examination to suggest and rebut the evidence of PW-1.

5. In these circumstances, there is no reason for MACT to have considered the minimum wages of U.P. as benchmark income.

6. Counsel for Insurance Company has made a plea that no evidence has been placed to suggest that he was working in Delhi, however, that may not be necessary, considering that minimum wages of an unskilled worker have been taken.

7. Minimum wages of an unskilled worker in Delhi on the date of accident were Rs. 9,568/- and should have been considered for computing the compensation.

8. Mr. Kumar, counsel for appellants, has raised an additional ground on inadequate non-pecuniary compensation awarded at Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering. Considering the nature of the injuries, which included mental retardation, blindness, permanent disability, loss for pain and suffering should be enhanced.

9. The Supreme Court in K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385, observed that “pain and suffering” cannot be captured by any fixed definition, drawing on legal, medical, and philosophical sources to emphasise its deeply subjective and life-altering nature. It recognised that translating such profound human loss into money is an inherently artificial exercise, yet courts must ensure fairness, consistency, and sensitivity to the victim’s lifelong deprivation. The Court stressed that in cases of severe or 100% disability, compensation must meaningfully reflect the permanent rupture in the victim’s physical, emotional, and existential well-being. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

14. In respect of ‘pain and suffering’ in cases where disability suffered is at 100%, we may notice a few decisions of this Court:— 14.[1] In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. It was observed: