SC Invokes Article 142, Awards Rs 15 Lakh To Girl Who Lost Mother, Suffered 50% Disability In 2010 Accident

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh ruled in favor of the minor, M Pradeesha, who was represented by her father in the appeal. Her counsel argued that her disability had unfortunately worsened over time. Due to injuries on her right leg, spanning from her thigh to her knee and down to her ankle, she has lost stability, making movement difficult.

The accident occurred on August 22, 2010, when the appellant, her mother, and several others were traveling in a TATA Ace Van along the Tambaram-Maduravoyal Bye Pass Road. The vehicle crashed into a stationary lorry, resulting in devastating consequences.

It was alleged that the lorry had been parked in the middle of the road on the Porur Lake Bridge without any signal or indicator, creating a hazardous situation. The appellant’s mother sustained multiple fractures and serious injuries and ultimately succumbed in the hospital. The appellant, who was just a child at the time, also suffered severe injuries. A medical certificate submitted before the tribunal, which was later accepted by the high court, confirmed that she had sustained 50% partial permanent disability.

Her counsel highlighted the far-reaching impact of the disability on her life. While she continues her academic pursuits with determination, the severity of her condition cannot be overlooked. The disability has significantly affected her academic career, employment prospects, and personal life. She requires constant assistance to move, and her marriage prospects are not as promising as they would have been if she had been in perfect health. In addition to enduring physical pain, she suffers from immense mental agony. She also needs special food and nourishment to maintain her health for daily activities and has lost access to many basic amenities and the simple joys of life.

Had it not been for this permanent disability, her counsel argued, she would have had the opportunity to pursue higher education in prestigious institutions and become self-reliant.

“The resultant effect is that, throughout her life, she will not be able to earn the livelihood which a person of her age group with normal health conditions would be able to earn. These losses cannot be measured exactly in monetary terms for the purpose of assessing the compensation. The appellant, of course, deserves to be suitably compensated so as to enable her to meet the day to day charges incurred on medical attendant, food, and other basic amenities," advocate PB Sashaankh submitted. On this premise, he urged that the girl ought to have been granted compensation of Rs 32 lakhs.

The girl had challenged the validity of the motor accident claims tribunal’s award issued on October 31, 2013, as well as the high court’s judgment dated March 23, 2017. The high court had granted her compensation of only Rs 1,72,000 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, along with an interest of 7.5 per cent per annum.

However, the insurance companies strongly contested the claim, arguing that the partial permanent disability had not severely hindered the appellant’s ability to pursue her education or future career. They also questioned the reliability of the disability certificate now presented before the Supreme Court, asserting that the tribunal had already assessed the compensation correctly based on the earlier certificate.

“Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the disability certificate, coupled with other relevant factors, we are satisfied that instead of assessing compensation under different heads, it is a fit case to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant lump sum suitable amount of compensation to the appellant," the bench said.

Taking note of the circumstances, the Supreme Court directed that, in addition to the compensation already granted, the appellant would be entitled to a lump sum of Rs 15 lakh. The insurance companies were ordered to pay this amount in the same proportion as determined by the tribunal and the high court.

“However, if the insurance companies fail to make such payment within 90 days, the appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the impugned judgment of the high court till actual payment thereof," the bench ordered.

While disposing of the appeal, the court clarified that the insurance companies retained the liberty to recover the amount from the vehicle owner in accordance with the tribunal’s and high court’s previous orders.