Gujarat High Court awards ₹1.5 lakh for loss of marital life after road-accident injuries left claimant impotent

The claimant, a 32-year-old advocate, was injured when a truck struck his scooter from behind on 23 June 1992.

He sustained multiple injuries, including a pelvic fracture and urethral injury, and claimed that the injuries impaired his working capacity and rendered him impotent.

The Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.1,800, disability at 24% of the whole body, and awarded Rs.3,42,028, with interest from the date the truck owner was served.

The claimant appealed, seeking enhanced compensation and interest from the date of the claim petition.

1. Whether the Tribunal properly assessed the claimant’s income, disability-related future loss, and non-pecuniary compensation, including compensation for loss of marital life.

2. Whether interest should run from the date of the claim petition notwithstanding the delay in serving the truck owner.

Sections 166, 168 and 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 govern claims for compensation, the award of just compensation, and interest on compensation, respectively.

The Court reiterated that compensation must be fair and reasonable and that Tribunals should avoid undue parsimony in motor accident claims, relying on N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, 1980 (3) SCC 457.

It applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, to add 40% towards future prospects for the claimant, aged 32, and apply a multiplier of 17.

Relying on G. Ravindranath v. E. Srinivasan, 2013 ACJ 213, and the cited decision of the Gujarat High Court Division Bench in Sanjaykumar Jayantilal Makwana, the Court recognised that loss of marital life may warrant separate compensation.

It distinguished New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansaben Sureshbhai Prajapati, which concerned substantial delay in pursuing an appeal and restoration application, from the procedural service delay in this case.

The claimant’s testimony and Bar Council sanad supported his evidence that he practised as an advocate; the Court therefore assessed his monthly income at Rs.2,500 rather than the Tribunal’s Rs.1,800.

It upheld the 24% disability assessment and, applying Pranay Sethi, calculated future loss using 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 17.

Considering the injuries and the medical evidence, it increased compensation for pain, shock and suffering and awarded Rs.1,50,000 for loss of marital life, while also allowing one year’s actual income loss.

On interest, the Court held that the service-related delay did not justify withholding interest from the claim-petition date: the insurer had been served, had not sought denial of interest on that ground, and the delay arose in the process of effecting substituted service.

The Court enhanced compensation by Rs.2,77,432, bringing the total award to Rs.6,19,460, and directed that the entire compensation carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 12 weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount in accordance with the judgment, subject to applicable court fees.