In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court delivered a comprehensive verdict in MACA Nos. 223 of 2021 & 483 of 2021, addressing the complex issue of determining the notional income of a 5-year-old minor in a motor accident claim. The case involved a young victim, Master Jyothis Raj Krishna, who was left paralyzed after a tragic road accident in 2016, and it marked a significant step forward in judicial interpretation of fair compensation principles.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an accident on December 3, 2016, when a car, driven recklessly, struck the 5-year-old boy while he was walking with his family along the Muvattupuzha-Ernakulam NH. The collision resulted in severe injuries, leaving the child in a paraparesis state, requiring lifelong care. His father, acting on his behalf, sought compensation for the extensive damages and suffering.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Muvattupuzha, initially awarded ₹44,94,223 in compensation. However, the amount was contested by both the claimant and the insurer, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimant sought enhancement, while the insurer argued the compensation was excessive.
The case was adjudicated by Justice Easwaran S. The claimant was represented by Advocates S. Sreedev and Enoch David Simon Joel, while Senior Advocate George Cherian, assisted by Advocate Latha Susan Cherian, appeared for the insurer.
Key Legal Issues
The High Court examined critical questions such as:
1. What should be the notional income of a 5-year-old minor?
2. Whether compensation under permanent disability and loss of earning capacity can overlap.
3. The adequacy of amounts granted for pain and suffering, future treatment, and attendant charges.
4. Applicability of the multiplier method in cases involving minors.
Notable Observations of the Court
Justice Easwaran S. emphasized the importance of fair compensation, remarking, “No amount of compensation can bring back the lost childhood of the claimant. Still, the grant of just and fair compensation can bring immense solace to the family of the claimant.”
– Determination of Notional Income: The court revised the notional income of the minor to ₹17,325 per month, based on the state’s minimum wages for skilled workers, rejecting the Tribunal’s earlier assessment of ₹8,000. The court noted that this approach aligns with progressive judicial thinking and ensures uniformity in compensation awards.
– Functional Disability: The minor’s functional disability was reassessed at 100% instead of the 77% set by the Tribunal. Justice Easwaran stated that the severity of the injuries and the claimant’s vegetative state warranted the higher percentage.
– Pain and Suffering: The court increased compensation for pain and suffering to ₹15,00,000, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020). The court highlighted the child’s lifelong ordeal and the inability to regain a normal life.
– Future Prospects: A 40% enhancement for future prospects was awarded, reflecting the guidelines laid down in Pranay Sethi (2017).
– Attendant Charges: Recognizing the lifelong care needed, the court awarded charges for two full-time attendants, factoring in the costs of such services in Kerala.
Rejection of Insurance Company’s Objections
The court rebuked the insurance company for its objections, stating that its stance lacked compassion and failed to recognize its corporate social responsibility. Justice Easwaran observed, “Such an inconsiderate mind of a corporate entity cannot be appreciated by this Court.”
Final Compensation Award
The Kerala High Court significantly enhanced the overall compensation, granting higher amounts under key heads, including pain and suffering, loss of amenities, dietary expenses, and future treatment costs. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair and adequate compensation for accident victims, especially minors.
