Gujarat High Court enhances compensation for injured student, orders insurer to pay first in composite-negligence case

On 13 December 1997, the claimant, aged approximately 19 years and studying for a B.Com. degree, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle. A scooter allegedly driven rashly and negligently collided with the motorcycle, causing the claimant to fall onto the road; a bus proceeding behind then ran into him.

The claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries and underwent treatment at Pune and Jamnagar, including surgery and prolonged hospitalisation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed MACP No. 960 of 1998 by judgment dated 27 December 2006 and awarded ₹3,76,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement of compensation and modification of the liability directions.

The Court applied the principles governing “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Relying on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, it held that the income of a student may be assessed with reference to the minimum wages for a skilled worker prevalent at the time of the accident.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., future prospects may be added to the assessed income, including for a young claimant.

The multiplier applicable to a claimant aged 19 years is 18.

Under the composite-negligence doctrine recognised in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the claimant may recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors; apportionment is relevant only for inter se recovery between the tortfeasors and cannot restrict the claimant’s recovery.

The Court further held that a claimant should not suffer for delay attributable to the registry or a previous advocate where no negligence is attributable to the claimant.

The Court reassessed the claimant’s notional income at ₹1,700 per month, being the minimum wage for a skilled worker in Gujarat in 1997, instead of ₹15,000 per annum adopted by the Tribunal.

It added 40% towards future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of ₹2,380. Applying the undisputed functional disability of 35% and multiplier 18, the future loss of income was calculated at ₹1,79,928.

Considering the interruption of the claimant’s B.Com. studies and his treatment at Pune and Jamnagar, the Court enhanced the combined amount for actual loss of income and loss of studies to ₹50,000.

In view of the prolonged treatment, ambulance transportation from Pune to Jamnagar, hospitalisation, and attendant and dietary requirements, the amount under special diet, attendant charges and transportation was enhanced to ₹50,000.

On the medical evidence showing the need for future surgery, the amount under that head was enhanced to ₹50,000.

Having regard to the multiple fractures, hospitalisation, and continuing treatment, pain, shock and suffering was enhanced to ₹75,000.

The awards for medical expenses of ₹1,50,000 and loss of amenities of ₹10,000 were maintained.

The total compensation was therefore recalculated at ₹5,64,928, yielding additional compensation of ₹1,88,928 over the Tribunal’s award.

The Court rejected the insurer’s objection to interest for the period during which the appeal file was misplaced, finding that the delay resulted from the previous advocate’s or registry’s conduct and was not attributable to the claimant.

Since the accident involved composite negligence, the insurer was directed to satisfy the award at the first instance, with liberty to recover 90% from the other tortfeasors.

The claimant was held entitled to total compensation of ₹5,64,928, including additional compensation of ₹1,88,928, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.

Respondent No. 4-insurer was directed to deposit the compensation and interest within eight weeks and to satisfy the award first, with liberty to recover 90% of the awarded amount and interest from the other joint tortfeasors through execution proceedings.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimant after deducting any deficit court fee and completing due verification.

No order as to costs.