Skip to content

Jithendran v. New India Assurance

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The Act is in the nature of social welfare legislation and its provisions make it clear that the compensation should be justly determined. A person therefore is not only to be compensated for the injury suffered due to the accident but also for the loss suffered on account of the injury and his inability to lead the life he led, prior to the lifealtering event. While the money awarded by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured victim (who is deprived of the normal amenities of life and suffers the unease of being a burden on others), the courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding ‘just compensation’.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Expense for bystanderthe claimant would require the assistance of a bystander / attendant for all his movements – Since no material is produced to quantify the expenses for the attendant,making a conservativeestimate, Rs.5,000/- per month appears to be thebareminimum. It is therefore deemed appropriate to quantify the annual expenses at Rs.60,000/- and applying the multiplier of 18, the additional compensation payable under the bystander head is quantified at Rs.10,80,000/-.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Future Medical Expenses As a person suffering severe cognitive impairment and 69% disability, recurring medical treatment is inevitable and bearing in mind the additional expenses already incurred, deem it appropriate to enhance the future medical expenses to Rs.3,00,000/- (from Rs.1,00,000/-), since the sum quantified by the High Court appears to be on the lower side.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988100% loss of future earnings The Courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant. In cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant is suffering severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the Courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’s loss of earning capacity is concerned. The extent of economic loss arising from a disability may not be measured in proportions to the extent of permanent disability.