High Court Raises Compensation in Two Motor Accident Claims, Fixes Student Notional Income at Rs.15,000

A bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu heard Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s common judgment and decree dated 19.07.2022 in M.C.O.P. Nos. 6856 and 6857 of 2016, the appeals being preferred by the two claimants seeking enhancement of compensation arising from a road accident involving a mixer lorry and a motorcycle.

The Court allowed both appeals in part and enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants. The appellant in CMA No. 2744 of 2022 (a degree student aged 17 at the time of the accident) suffered an amputation of the left leg and multiple injuries; the Court increased the total award to Rs.39,28,000/-. The appellant in CMA No. 2745 of 2022 (aged 20 and working as a carpenter) sustained partial amputation of the right great toe and other injuries; the Court enhanced the award to Rs.3,78,000/-. The enhanced awards carried interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petitions until realization, with apportionment and mode of deposit to remain as directed by the Tribunal. The Court emphasised that "compensation must be just, reasonable and not illusory" when assessing awards for grievous injuries and amputation. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "But this Court finds that fixing the notional income at Rs.7,000/- for a degree student is wholly inadequate. This Court has consistently held that the notional income of degree students should not be less than Rs.10,000/- per month. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh has held that notional income of a student should at least correspond to minimum wages. Considering the age, educational qualification, and future prospects of the appellant, this Court fixes the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month and the functional disability at 75%, as evidenced by Ex.P15 is taken. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of Functional Disability stands enhanced to Rs.34,02,000/-."

Background
The accident occurred on 22.09.2016 at about 6.00 p.m. near Eechangadu Almass Furniture Shop when a mixer lorry (TN‑63‑M‑9014) allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the first respondent struck a motorcycle (TN‑07‑AH‑3576) carrying both appellants (one rider and one pillion rider). Both claimants sustained grievous injuries and underwent prolonged treatment; the mixer lorry was insured with the second respondent Insurance Company and the owner/driver was arrayed as first respondent (who remained ex parte before the Tribunal). The claimant in CMA No. 2744 suffered an acute crush injury culminating in left leg amputation; a Medical Board assessed permanent disability at 75% though the Tribunal quantified functional disability at 50% and fixed a notional income of Rs.7,000/- per month. The claimant in CMA No. 2745 suffered crush injury to the right foot with partial amputation of the great toe and fractures; the Tribunal fixed notional income at Rs.8,000/- and awarded loss of income for three months.

On appeal, counsel for the claimants contended that the notional incomes and several heads of damages were undervalued. The High Court revisited the disability assessments, the notional income benchmarks (noting Supreme Court authority in Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh that a student's notional income should at least correspond to minimum wages), and the period for loss of income. The Court raised the student’s notional income to Rs.15,000/- and accepted functional disability at 75%, enhancing the functional disability component to Rs.34,02,000/- and increasing awards under heads such as pain and suffering, transportation, nutrition, attender charges, loss of amenities and mental agony, resulting in a total of Rs.39,28,000/-. For the skilled labourer, the Court enhanced notional income to Rs.12,000/-, extended loss of income to six months, and adjusted other heads to arrive at Rs.3,78,000/-. Except for the specified enhancements, the Tribunal’s award dated 19.07.2022 stood confirmed; there was no order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: CMA Nos. 2744 & 2745 of 2022
Case Title: Mohammed Sadik @ Mo Sadik v. S. Saravanan & Another; Mohammed Mothim @ Mohammed Mohasin v. S. Saravanan & Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A.G.F. Terry Chella Raja (for both appellants)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vijaya Ragavan (for R2 – Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.); R1 (owner/driver) set ex parte.