Priyanka D/o Ashok Nage vs Shamkant S/o Prabhakar Joshi & Ors.

Admit. Learned advocates for respondents accepts notice.

Heard finally with consent of parties.

The appellant/original claimant takes exception to judgment and award dated 13.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 205 of 2001, thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.

On 17.03.2001, claimant accompanied by her mother arrived near Sarai Bus Stop on Khultabad to Phulambri Road. A truck bearing Registration No.MH-15-G-4099 which came from Khultabad side gave dash to claimant. Resultantly, she sustained injuries on both her legs. Immediately, she was shifted to Shree Krishna Hospital at Aurangabad, where her right leg and big toe of left leg was required to be amputed. Resultantly, she was not in a position to walk without assistance of any other person. She suffered permanent disability. Accordingly, claim for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was raised under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner, driver and insurer of offending vehicle. The Tribunal upon evaluation of evidence passed an award of Rs.2,01,620/- in favor of claimant including no fault liability.

Mr. Amol Khedkar, learned appearing for appellant would submits that Tribunal relying upon evidence of CW-2 Dr. Kapahtia accepted that she suffered 57% permanent disability. Since claimant was 5 years old at the time of accident, assessed her notional income @ Rs. 15,000/-, applied multiplier of ‘15’ and assessed future loss of earning to Rs.1,28,250/-. The Tribunal added only Rs.50,000/-towards general damages on account of pain and sufferings, marriage prospects and permanent disability.

By way of Civil Application No.13144 of 2018, claimant has brought on record disability certificate issued by Medical Board at Government Medical College and Hospital at Aurangabad, which shows permanent disability to 80%. It has been brought on record that claimant was meritorious student and by extraordinary effort, she excelled in academic achievements. She secured Bachelor of Engineering and ultimately selected as Class-II Officer in State of Maharashtra through competitive exam. At present, she is working as Resident Executive Engineer and Resident Assistant Commissioner. According to Mr. Khedkar, assessment of compensation by Tribunal cannot be treated as just compensation looking to nature of disabilities and ability of appellant/claimant. While pursuing this Court for passing award of enhanced compensation, he relies upon observations in case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Shweta Dilip Mehta and Others reported in 2010 (4) ABR (NOC) 411 (Bom), Rupesh Rashmikant Shah Vs. M/s. Elegant Industries Pvt Ltd and Another in First Appeal No.762 of 1990 decided on 21.11.2014, Master Ayush Vs. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 330, Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another in Civil Appeal No.10278 of 2025 decided on 08.08.2025, Ritu Minor Thro. Her Father and Ors Vs. Regional Manager, Uttranchal State road Transport Corporation reported in 2013 AAC 1106 (DEL).

Per contra, Mr. Soman, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that appellant was aged about 5 years at the time of accident. Looking to nature of injuries suffered by claimant, Tribunal assessed compensation as per Second Schedule under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act as a guiding factor. At the time of award, it was impossible to assess expectancy of life and future prospect of claimant/injured. The Tribunal has therefore rightly assessed compensation in light of prevailing legal position. The future achievements of claimant which are brought on record by way of civil application would not be relevant for assessment of compensation.

Having considered submission advanced by learned advocates appearing for respective parties and after going through record tendered into service, this Court finds that undisputedly, claimant was hardly 5 years of age at the time of accident. She suffered amputation of right leg and left leg big toe. Her disability was assessed to 57% by Medical Officer. The documentary evidence with her tremendous willpower crossed big ladders of academic success and achieved extraordinary position in life. She has put an example which would be vital for physically challenged persons for years together. However, when it comes to assessment of compensation, particularly on the basis of situation at the time of accident, this Court to bear in mind that process determining compensation is a practical task and can never be an exact science. The perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims for injury and disability. Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered, as has been observed in case of H. West and Sons Ltd Vs. Shepherd reported in (1958) ACJ 504 (H.L.). Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 requires Tribunal to determine just compensation. It is trite that just compensation to be determined keeping in mind many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. Ultimate discretion is vested on Tribunal to determine just compensation with a judicious approach and not outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.

In case of R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551, certain guiding principles are laid down for fixing compensation to victim of accident. The reference can be given to observations in para 9, which reads thus :

In light of aforesaid exposition of law, compensation needs to be determined keeping in mind pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary losses suffered by victim of accident. The compensation has to be assessed separately for pecuniary and special damages which could be calculated in terms of money and non-pecuniary damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In present case, since claimant was aged about five years and Tribunal was put to task to decide compensation towards physical injuries suffered by claimant, it was difficult to assess life expectancy and ability of child. In such case, Tribunal has to apply judicious mind on the basis of material on record and determine just compensation that could be awarded keeping in mind nature of injuries.

In present case, accident occurred on 17.03.2001. The claimant's natural guardian/mother stepped into witness box and gave details of medical treatment advanced to claimant and narration of assistance that would be required all along life. She has deposed about hampering marriage prospectus and justified her claim for award of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. In addition, evidence of Dr. Kapahtia, Orthopedic Surgeon, who treated claimant at Shree Krishna Hospital is relied, who deposed that claimant had suffered segmental crushing of right thigh, right knee and right leg with total distal neurogascular deficit. She was having a chromatic amputation of left toe. Hence, her right leg from above the knee and left great toe was required to be amputed. She was treated as indoor patient from 17.03.2001 to 31.03.2001. The claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45% and 12% respectively for both legs, totaling 57% by MC Bride scale. Except this, there was no other material before Tribunal.

In this backdrop, this Court finds that future achievements of claimant cannot form basis to determine compensation. The Tribunal could not have foreseen ability and extraordinary achievements of claimant during her advancement of life. The compensation needs to be determined by Tribunal on the basis of situation as on date of accident or nature of permanent disability that is suffered by victim. In case of a child, it would not be safe to decide compensation amount based on future achievements, only because claim petition or appeal was pending for years together and evidence of advancement in life could be brought to notice of this Court.

The Tribunal found that multiplier method is appropriate and well recognized for determining loss of future earning. In present case, since claimant was a girl of tender age, this Court finds that looking to valuation of money in the year 2001, notional income can be considered @ Rs.5,000/- per month by most liberal standards. Maximum multiplier of 18 as has been approved in India can be safely taken as a basis. In addition to compensation towards medical expenses incurred, transportation charges, attendant charges, special diet expenses can be added. So far as non-pecuniary damages is concerned, various heads of compensation as suggested in case of R. D. Hattangadi (supra) can be considered.

Although Mr. Khedkar, learned advocate appearing for appellant endeavors to point out that compensation towards artificial limb or special fitments can be considered, no such evidence was brought before Tribunal or placed before this Court along with Civil Application No.13144 of 2018.

In light of aforesaid observations, this Court finds that looking to nature of permanent disability, at least 80% loss of earning can be assumed in facts of this case, accordingly, compensation towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads can be worked out in following manner :

In light of aforesaid calculation, following order is passed:

First Appeal is partly allowed.

The judgment and award dated 13.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 205 of 2001 is modified.

The respondents shall jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs..14,12,370/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from date of filing of claim petition till realization of amount to appellant/claimant (inclusive of NFL). The compensation amount already released/paid as per award of Tribunal be appropriated.

On deposit of compensation amount, same be released in favour of appellant/claimant.

Award be drawn up on payment of deficit court fees, if any.

Civil Application stands disposed of.