Quadriplegic 22-year-old accident victim’s compensation enhanced from ₹15.28 lakh to ₹28.84 lakh, with 100% functional disability recognised by Allahabad High Court

The appellant, aged approximately 22 years and employed as a conductor/cleaner, was travelling in vehicle no. UP 13 P 9762 on 2 November 2007 when it was hit by vehicle no. UP 13 J 9576 on GT Road, Muzaffarnagar.

He sustained severe spinal injuries, including dislocation of the C4-C5 vertebrae, underwent spinal surgery with internal fixation, and thereafter suffered quadriplegia, complete immobility, urinary and faecal incontinence, and permanent dependence on others for daily activities.

He remained hospitalised for a total of 116 days across several hospitals and earned approximately Rs. 5,000 per month at the time of the accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the drivers of both vehicles were negligent and apportioned liability equally.

It awarded Rs. 15,28,000 with 7% annual interest, fastening 50% liability on the owner of the appellant’s vehicle and 50% on the insurer of the other vehicle.

The Tribunal assessed the appellant’s disability at 70%, awarded future loss of income on that basis, granted limited attendant charges, and declined past medical expenses for want of medical bills.

Whether the appellant’s functional disability and consequent loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100%, notwithstanding the 70% physical disability certificate relied upon by the Tribunal?

Whether the appellant was entitled to future prospects at 50% under Rule 220A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998?

Whether the attendant charges awarded by the Tribunal were inadequate and required determination by applying the multiplier method?

Whether past medical expenses could be awarded despite the absence of supporting medical bills, on the basis of hospital records, prescriptions, and treatment evidence?

What amount of just compensation and apportionment of liability should be awarded?

Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation in a motor accident claim must be “just,” meaning fair, reasonable, and equitable, as explained in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90.

Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571, requires compensation to provide realistic recompense for the loss of dignity, pain, and trauma caused by life-altering injuries.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, physical disability is not automatically equivalent to loss of earning capacity; the Tribunal must assess the impact of the disability on the claimant’s actual occupation and earning ability.

However, where the claimant is permanently incapacitated and unable to earn any livelihood, functional disability may properly be assessed at 100%, as recognised in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 217, and Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 620.

Rule 220A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 permits future-prospect additions in permanent-disability cases, including 50% for an injured claimant below 40 years of age.

The multiplier method applies not only to loss of earnings but also to attendant charges, as held in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413.

Hospitalisation and treatment expenses may be awarded on a reasonable and conservative assessment even without bills where the medical records establish actual treatment and expenditure.

The Court held that the Tribunal had mechanically adopted the 70% physical-disability certificate without assessing the effect of the appellant’s condition on his earning capacity.

The appellant was a young conductor/cleaner, was completely bedridden, suffered quadriplegia and incontinence, and could not perform even basic daily functions without assistance.

Applying Raj Kumar, Parminder Singh, and Jithendran, the Court concluded that his loss of earning capacity was effectively 100%.

Since he was below 40 years of age, the Court added 50% future prospects under Rule 220A and calculated future loss of income as Rs. 7,500 per month × 12 × multiplier 18, totalling Rs. 16,20,000.

Because the appellant required lifelong assistance, the Tribunal’s additional attendant award of only Rs. 1,00,000 was held inadequate.

Applying the multiplier method and adopting Rs. 4,000 per month, the Court awarded Rs. 8,64,000 for attendant charges.

The appellant’s repeated hospitalisations, surgery, prescriptions, discharge summaries, and medical reports established substantial treatment-related expenditure; accordingly, the Court conservatively awarded Rs. 2,50,000 for past medical expenses despite the absence of bills.

It retained the Tribunal’s other awards and additionally granted Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of marriage prospects, while avoiding duplication under loss of amenities because 100% loss of earning capacity had already been recognised.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment.

Liability remained apportioned equally between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 5, each being responsible for 50% of the compensation and accrued interest.

The insurer was permitted to recover the amount from the vehicle owner if the owner failed to produce the vehicle documents and driving licence demanded by the insurer.

Payment was directed within one month, subject to adjustment of any amount already deposited or paid.