IMPORTANT POINT
Permanent disability suffered in motor accident – Quantum of compensation must be adequate and not deficient.

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. Leave granted.

2. On 13.04.2013, when she was still a child of less than twelve years of age, the appellant was involved in an accident that left her permanently disabled to the extent of 75%. The vehicle in which she was travelling with her father was hit by the Max Pick Up Van bearing Registration No. AS-01CC-3349. In the result, she suffers from severe Hemiparesis in her left upper and lower limbs.

3. MAC Case No. 1431 of 2014 was filed on her behalf by her father, Dhan Bahadur Thapa, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati (for brevity, ‘the MACT’). M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, with which the offending Max Pick Up Van was stated to have been insured, was arrayed as Opposite Party No. 1 while the owner and driver of the said Van were shown as Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3. By judgment dated 23.02.2018, the MACT held that the vehicle in question was duly insured with M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited by its owner, Opposite Party No. 2, and that the driver, Opposite Party No. 3, who possessed a valid Driving License at the relevant time, had caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving.

4. The MACT then considered the issue of compensation in the light of the material placed before it. Apropos the disability suffered by the appellant, the MACT took note of the fact that the Disability Certificate dated 12.07.2017 (Ext.8) quantified her permanent disability at 75% but chose to reduce it to 50%, opining that there was possibility of improvement in her condition. Further, though a sum of Rs.13 lakh was claimed for the medical treatment of the appellant, her father could produce bills only for the sum of Rs.84,771/-. The MACT, therefore, acted upon the bills so produced. As regards determination of the loss of earnings of the appellant, the MACT opined that a child could not be equated to a ‘Non-earning person’ in Clause 6 in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whose notional income was to be taken as Rs.15000/- per annum. In all, the MACT determined that a sum of Rs.5,59,771/-, along with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, was to be paid by the insurance company. The break-up of the MACT’s quantification reads as under:

5. Dissatisfied with this compensation, the appellant, through her father, filed an appeal in MACApp./539/2018 before the Gauhati High Court. By judgment dated 20.02.2023, a learned Judge of the Gauhati High Court disposed of the said appeal, enhancing the compensation to Rs.18,97,371/-. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the appellant’s permanent disability, as per Ext.8 disability certificate, ought to have been accepted and accordingly assessed the same as 75%. The learned Judge placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and another, (2022) 7 SCC 738 which involved determination of compensation payable to a five-year old victim of a road accident, and held that compensation in that regard was to be assessed as per the minimum wages on the assumption that the victim would have been able to earn after attaining adulthood. The learned Judge, accordingly, took note of the minimum wages payable to unskilled labour at the time of the accident, i