Delhi High Court awards ₹23.67 lakh to 19-year-old paraplegic accident victim, including lifelong attendant costs

On 4 April 2010, the appellant, aged 19 years and travelling in a TSR, suffered grievous spinal injuries when a Santro car, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, struck the TSR near K.G. Marg, India Gate Outer Circle, causing it to overturn.

The appellant sustained a fracture of the D12 vertebra with complete paraplegia, bowel and bladder involvement, and 90% permanent physical disability.

He was working as a peon at the time of the accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him ₹7,88,553 with interest at 7.5% per annum by award dated 9 July 2014.

In appeal, he sought enhancement on the grounds that his functional disability had been assessed at only 45%, compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenities was inadequate, and no attendant charges had been awarded.

Whether, in view of the appellant’s complete paraplegia and 90% permanent physical disability, his functional disability and consequent loss of future earning capacity should be assessed at 90% rather than 45%?

Whether the compensation awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life was inadequate and required enhancement?

Whether the appellant was entitled to attendant charges for life, and if so, whether such charges should be calculated using the multiplier method?

Whether the future-prospects component required modification from 50% to 40% in light of the applicable law?

The Court applied the principles in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, that permanent physical disability is distinct from loss of earning capacity; the Tribunal must assess the claimant’s vocation, the functions affected, and the actual impact of disability on earning capacity.

Where the evidence establishes that physical disability substantially corresponds to loss of earning capacity, the same percentage may be adopted.

Relying on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Court held that attendant charges may be determined through the multiplier method, taking into account the claimant’s lifelong need for assistance, inflation, interest and longevity.

The Court also applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, reducing future prospects from 50% to 40% for the claimant’s private employment.

For attendant charges, the Court adopted the minimum wages of a skilled worker in Uttar Pradesh at ₹3,290 per month and multiplier 18, corresponding to the claimant’s age of 19 years.

The Court found that the appellant’s disability was not merely a partial physical impairment: he had complete paraplegia with bowel and bladder involvement and would require lifelong assistance.

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court considered the practical effect of the disability on his pre-accident occupation as a peon and concluded that he had no realistic opportunity to pursue any vocation; therefore, the functional disability was appropriately assessed at 90%, rather than 45%.

Given the severity and permanent nature of the injuries, the amounts of ₹50,000 each for pain and suffering and loss of amenities were held to be highly inadequate and were enhanced to ₹2,00,000 each.

Applying Kajal, the Court awarded attendant charges for the claimant’s lifetime at ₹3,290 × 12 × 18, amounting to ₹7,10,640.

It further corrected the future-prospects component from 50% to 40%, resulting in loss of future earnings of ₹12,24,720.

The enhanced amount of ₹15,79,152, together with accrued interest, was directed to be deposited before the MACT within four weeks.

A lump sum of ₹5,00,000 was directed to be released to the claimant within two weeks thereafter, while the balance enhanced amount was to be placed in successive fixed deposit receipts of ₹25,000 each, with interest credited to the claimant’s savings account.

The original award was directed to continue to be released in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.