The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method and consideration of wages for a 'skilled' laborer in determining compensation for attendant charges under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal challenges the Award dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (North- West), Rohini Courts, in MACT No. 436/2017 titled Jatin v. Karan & Anr..

2. This Court by its judgment and order dated 08.12.2020, on the question of the appellant being entitled to compensation towards attendant charges, had inter alia observed as under:

"7 Compensation should be meaningful and have a reparative character i.e., the injured should be put in same position as she/he was before the injury. In the present case, the doctors have opined that there is no likelihood of any improvement in the appellant's condition. Indeed, his condition is only likely to worsen. He should therefore be provided the basic but necessary assistance of attendants who could care for his rudimentary needs, such as to go to the toilet, to sit up, to put on clothes, to eat and other human activities. The 100% disabled appellant would require two attendants/care-givers in 12-hour shifts. Let the same be provided to him.

8 Presently, the appellant may have the benefit of his caring parents but they cannot be expected to be present with him at all times, as they may be engaged in other activities and/or be employed to make provisions for the family's needs. In the circumstances, the appellant shall be paid compensation towards the procurement of the assistance of two semi- skilled worker on the basis of minimum wages, from the date of the accident and for the rest of the appellant's life.

9 The arrears towards the same shall be paid by the insurer, on the basis of notified minimum wage rates applicable to a semi-skilled worker. The arrears shall be deposited directly into the bank account of the appellant, jointly operated by his parents, in a month's time, along with interest accrued thereon @ 9% p.a. Payments apropos `attendant charges' in the future shall also be ensured by the insurer. The current minimum wage rate of a semi-skilled workman is approximately Rs. 18,000/-. Accordingly, Rs.36,000/- per month would be required to be paid to the appellant. These rates are revised twice a year. Therefore, prudently provision should be made for automatic crediting of the current and future wages into the appellant's bank account. Logically, the insurance company should assure about Rs.50,000/- per month as DFR interest. According to the current FDR rates, a deposit Rs.60 lakhs is likely to fetch about Rs.50,000/- per month as interest. Let Rs.60 lakhs be kept in an interest-bearing FDR by the insurer in its own bank. The interest earned therefrom, shall be credited into the appellants' account by the 10th day of each Gregorian calendar month, on the basis of notified minimum wages for two attendants.

10 Should the minimum wages be subsequently enhanced to a quantum which does not meet the interest generated from the FDR, the insurer shall augment the deposit to meet the shortfall. The insurer shall have a lien on the deposit, which it shall encash on the demise of the claimant."

(Emphasis supplied)

3. Feeling aggrieved of the direction, the respondent no.1 challenged the above judgment before the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal no. 4577/2021. The Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 03.08.2021, set aside the directions contained in paragraph 8 to 10 of the order dated 08.12.2020, however, at the same time directed as under:

"Now turning to the facts of the present case, the child was 11 years of age when he suffered functional disability which has been assessed at 70% by the medical board and the tribunal, and which the High Court determined as 100% functional disability. It is in these circumstances that the direction has been passed for attendants with a methodology of accessing the minimum wages payable for two skilled workers. In the given factual scenario, we are of the view that the apposite course to follow is set out in Kajal's case (supra)."

(Emphasis supplied)

4. The learned counsel fo