Presiding Officer: Sh. Surinder S. Rathi
Case : Sunil Kumar v. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors., Petition No. 722/2017,
Date of Award: 02 September 2022
Introduction
In a sensitive and disability-responsive award, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT-II), West District, Delhi, has awarded ₹1,13,50,038, including interest, to a young man who suffered amputation of both his hands above the elbow in a road accident.
The Tribunal, presided over by Mr. Surinder S. Rathi, PO, MACT-II, West, Tis Hazari Courts, recognised that the consequences of such an injury extend far beyond the immediate medical treatment. The award provides for the cost of a permanent attendant for the whole of the claimant's life, future loss of earning capacity, prosthesis, pain and suffering, and other expenses.
The case is particularly noteworthy for the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with the insurance company's attempt to avoid liability on the ground that the driver did not possess the requisite licence endorsement to drive a vehicle carrying petroleum products.
The accident and the life-changing injury
Sunil Kumar, aged 24 at the time of the accident, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle on 11 June 2017, when a truck hit the motorcycle from the side. He suffered grievous injuries and was initially taken to Rathi Hospital and thereafter to AIIMS. His injuries resulted in the amputation of both hands above the elbow. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board recorded 100% permanent disability.
The medical evidence placed before the Tribunal was stark. Dr. Naresh Chandra, HOD (Orthopaedics), GGS Hospital, testified that the claimant was unable to undertake any activity with either upper limb and would require a permanent attendant to assist him. The claimant was also referred for an externally powered trans-humeral prosthesis and related components.
The Tribunal therefore did not treat attendant assistance as a temporary or incidental expense.
Recognising lifelong support needs
An important feature of the award is the treatment of attendant charges.
Although Sunil Kumar had claimed that he would need to engage an attendant at ₹25,000 per month for his whole life, he had not produced documentary proof that an attendant had actually been employed. The Tribunal nevertheless held that, given the amputation of both hands and 100% permanent disability, he would “definitely” require an attendant for the whole of his life for carrying out day-to-day activities.
Drawing upon the principle that compensation can be awarded even where family members provide gratuitous attendant services, the Tribunal calculated the cost of lifelong attendant care by applying the minimum wages of a semi-skilled worker and the multiplier applicable to the claimant's age.
This resulted in an award of ₹31,74,768 towards lifelong attendant charges.
This is significant from a disability perspective. The award acknowledges that support needs are a continuing consequence of disability, and that the economic value of such support does not disappear merely because a family member provides it without payment.
The insurance defence—and an important benefit of doubt
The insurance company accepted that both of Sunil Kumar's hands had been amputated, but contested its liability on the ground that the driver possessed a licence for a Heavy Goods Vehicle but did not have the necessary authorisation to drive a vehicle carrying petroleum products.
The Tribunal, however, found that the evidentiary basis for this defence was lacking.
While the truck was painted “Bharat Gas”, the Tribunal noted that there was nothing on record to establish that gas cylinders or any hazardous material were actually loaded in the truck at the time of the accident. The seizure memo and superdarinama were silent about any hazardous material. The Tribunal also noted that the vehicle was a simple goods truck and not a truck equipped with a cylindrical petroleum container.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal declined to draw an adverse inference against the victim merely from the nature or markings of the vehicle. It further observed that, at most, the absence of the endorsement could constitute a technical violation, particularly when the insurance policy itself was silent on this aspect.
The approach is important. Where the evidence did not establish that the vehicle was carrying filled gas cylinders or other hazardous material at the time of the accident, the uncertainty was not allowed to operate to the detriment of the injured claimant.
In effect, the absence of evidence that the cylinders were loaded worked in favour of the victim rather than becoming another hurdle in his claim.
Compensation recognising both economic and human consequences
Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, the Tribunal recognised that compensation in a serious injury case must account not merely for the physical injury but also for its consequences for earning capacity and the ability to lead a full and independent life.
The Tribunal assessed the claimant's functional disability for the purpose of loss of earning capacity at 50% and awarded ₹39,39,300 towards loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, along with ₹3 lakh towards prosthesis.
It further awarded ₹12 lakh for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, recognising the gravity of the injury suffered by a young person who had lost both hands above the elbow.
The final computation was:
| Head of compensation | Amount |
|---|---|
| Treatment, hospitalisation and medicines | ₹50,000 |
| Conveyance | ₹50,000 |
| Special diet | ₹60,000 |
| Lifelong attendant charges | ₹31,74,768 |
| Loss of future earning due to permanent disability, including prosthesis | ₹42,39,300 |
| Pain and suffering | ₹12,00,000 |
| Total compensation | ₹87,74,068 |
| Interest @ 6% | ₹25,75,970 |
| Total award including interest | ₹1,13,50,038 |
The Tribunal also directed that 10% of the award be released immediately, while the balance was to be kept in 300 monthly FDRs over 25 years, with monthly interest being credited to the claimant's account.
Why this award matters
The significance of the decision lies not merely in the quantum of compensation. It lies in the human-centred approach to assessing what disability means over the course of a person's life.
For a person who has lost both hands above the elbow, the consequences are permanent and pervasive. Everyday activities, personal care, mobility, communication, employment and participation in community life may require varying degrees of assistance, technology or rehabilitation.
The Tribunal's decision to recognise lifelong attendant costs even in the absence of proof that a paid attendant had already been employed is therefore particularly important. It recognises the underlying support requirement rather than making compensation dependent upon whether the family could afford to hire someone after the accident.
Equally significant is the treatment of the insurance company's defence. The claimant was not made to bear the consequences of an evidentiary gap for which there was no supporting material on record. The mere fact that the truck carried “Bharat Gas” markings was not treated as proof that it was actually carrying filled gas cylinders at the time of the accident.
This is a reminder that the adjudication of motor accident claims involving persons who acquire higher degree of disabilities resulting in 'high support needs' cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise of applying percentages and multiplying figures. The real-life consequences of disability, including lifelong dependence on assistance, have to inform the assessment of “just compensation”.
The award of ₹1.13 crore, therefore, represents more than a monetary figure. It reflects an effort by the Ld. Presiding Officer of the Tribunal to ensure that a young person whose life was irrevocably altered by the accident has resources to meet at least some of the continuing costs of living with a significant disability.
Read the judgement
Case: Sunil Kumar v. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors., Petition No. 722/2017, MACT-II (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Award dated 2 September 2022.