Reshma v. Dajiba Krishna Lad & Anr.

2. The claimant-appellant before us lays challenge to the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad dated 24.09.2024 which, in turn, was preferred against C.A.No..@SLP(C)No. 14729 of 2025 the award dated 04.12.2017 passed by the XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge & Addl. MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.1320/2016.

3. Certain facts are not in dispute viz., (a) the claimantappellant namely Reshma, having sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident, subject matter of the present lis; (b) the vehicle stood insured by the insurer namely New India Assurance Company Limited; (c) claimant-appellant’s entitlement for compensation; and (d) cause of accident being rash and negligent acts of driving the vehicle on the part of the respondent no.1.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have ably assisted the Court in the present matter.

5. With the aforesaid undisputed facts, we proceed to decide the matter.

6. The claimant-appellant at the time of the accident was 24 years of age. The Tribunal, vide order dated 04.12.2017, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.MH-09/BB-

1565. Taking the income of the claimant-appellant to be at Rs.10,000/-, awarded compensation amounting to Rs.30,24,800/- with interest @9% per annum to the claimantappellant herein.

7. Thereafter, the High Court, while allowing the claimantappellant’s appeal for enhancement, reassessed her income to be Rs.9,000/-, and increased the amount awarded towards the head of future prospects to the tune of 40%. Therefore, the amount of compensation was enhanced by Rs.5,61,600/- along with interest @6% from the date of filing of the petition. In effect, the total compensation stood increased from Rs.30,24,800/- to Rs.35,86,400/-. Yet dissatisfied, the claimant appellant has carried the matter in an appeal before us.

8. The instant case is one of those where, solely for the reason of negligence exhibited by one party, the other suffers grave, life-altering consequences. The accident that rendered the claimant-appellant severely disabled took place in the broad daylight on the unfortunate morning of 23.02.2015 at 11:45 AM. The Tribunal, in paras 15 -19 of its award, discussed the nature of injuries suffered, both physical and mental, and correctly in our view, assessed the disability of the claimantappellant to be 100%.

9. The challenge to the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court is on the grounds that the income of the claimant-appellant has been reduced by Rs.1,000/-; no compensation was awarded under the head of marriage prospects; disfigurement; grossly insufficient compensation has been awarded under the heads of attendant charges; and future medical expenses. Interest has been sought at the enhanced rate of 12% per annum as per Jiju Kuruvilla & others vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & others[1].

10. We find force in the case set up by the claimant-appellant. The object of just compensation, as has been discussed in numerous judgments, is to restore, as far as possible, the claimant-appellant to a position where the accident would not have taken place and they would not be negatively affected in life. Cases such as the present one highlight the limits of just compensation, for it cannot be disputed that no amount of money will bring the claimant-appellant back to the time where she would be able to live a life on her own terms, being duly entitled to dream of and make efforts for a glorious future.

11. We are of the considered view that the Tribunal, as also the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, have awarded appropriate and just compensation.

11.1. The High Court assessed the income of the claimant-appellant @Rs.9,000/- per month in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence

11.2. A 24-year-old female’s entire life has been turned upside down because of the disaster that has befallen on the claimant-appellant and her family. All wants and desires have forever been crushed and extinguished; this may very well include prospects to lead a happy marital life. Although no particular calculation can be prescribed for such a loss, given its non-pecuniary nature, we follow this Court’s pronouncement in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand[2], wherein a 12-year-old girl had suffered grievous injuries leading to brain damage and the Courts while considering the head of marriage prospects, awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The accident in that case took place in 2007 whereas in the present case, it was in the year 2015. Under this head, therefore, compensation is awarded to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-.

11.3. Given the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant (85% mental disability and 45% physical disability to lower left limb) we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Courts below, under the head of attendant charges, is severely inadequate. In Kajal (supra), attendant charges were assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month, which were awarded as per the multiplier applicable. In Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon[3], considering severe injuries like “cerebral oedema/brain oedema, fracture right part of temporal bone, spinal cord, lower limbs, due to which he was having loss of speech, convulsions, injuries on face. The lower limb of the claimant was completely paralysed resulting into 100% disability; his hope to live blissful life was lost due to those injuries”, this Court deemed it appropriate to grant attendant charges for two attendants instead of one. The present case is also a fit one to award the attendant charges for two attendants. As such the attendant charges for 24 hours amounting to Rs.10,000/- per month x 2 = Rs.20,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs.43,20,000/-

11.4. Under pain and suffering, the Courts below awarded Rs.2,00,000/-. We may only ask, what else does a claimant have to suffer to be awarded a fair amount under this head? Taking a cumulative view of the circumstances, as also the compensation as enhanced by this Court in the above terms, we award a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.