The Supreme Court recently reviewed the case law pertaining to “pain and suffering” (a category that victims of motor accidents may seek compensation under) and increased the sum granted, going above and above what was requested, in a decision involving a victim of a motor accident.
Compensation of Rs.15 lakhs was granted to the injured appellant under the category of “pain and suffering” by a bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, despite the appellant’s request for Rs.10 lakhs.
The Bench observed, “Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the ‘pain and suffering’ caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs.15,00,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’, fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant–appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.”
The Court observed that an extensive review of judicial precedents and scholarly materials across diverse fields, including bioethics, medical ethics, psycho-oncology, anaesthesiology, philosophy, and sociology, revealed a common theme: a person’s self-understanding is fundamentally “shaken or compromised” by persistent suffering.
The Court said , “In the present facts, it is unquestionable that the sense of something being irreparably wrong in life, as spoken by Frank (supra); vulnerability and futility, as spoken by Edgar, is present and such a feeling will be present for the remainder of his natural life”,.
To summarize the case’s circumstances, the appellant was travelling in his company car when it collided with a carelessly driven container truck. 90% of him was permanently disabled. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal determined that the appellant had a 100% functional impairment and ordered the insurance carrier to pay Rs. 58,09,930 plus 6% annual interest (not including Rs. 1,00,000 for future medical expenditures).
Both the appellant and the insurance company, dissatisfied with the MACT judgement, filed an appeal to the Karnataka High Court. The High Court increased the compensation sum from Rs.58,09,930 to Rs.78,16,390. The appellant contested the High Court ruling by appealing to the Supreme Court for an increase in compensation related to future medical bills, future prospects, and pain and suffering.
The Supreme Court adjusted the compensation award on two grounds: future prospects and ‘pain and suffering’. The total sum determined to be payable to the appellant was established as Rs.1,02,29,241/-.
The Court observed that there was consensus regarding the severity of the injuries sustained by the appellant and their enduring impact on his life, thereby justifying an increase in compensation for ‘pain and suffering.’
It considered the evidence of a physician who said that the appellant was confined to a wheelchair, was unable to do any job, would need assistance with all of his daily activities, and that the disability was probably permanent.
The Court additionally cited the decisions made in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance (2022) 7 SCC 738, and Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 9 SCC 805, wherein compensations for ‘pain and suffering’ were increased and awarded within the range of Rs.3-15 lakhs.
The subsequent excerpt from Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty (2003) 7 SCC 197 was included in the judgement:
“18. A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident through out his life and a feeling is developed that his no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities, features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to be reckoned.”
Cause Title: K.S. MURALIDHAR VERSUS R. SUBBULAKSHMI & ANR, SLP(C)No.18337/2021