Though we raise our eyebrows at the mind-boggling figures involved in scams that unfold almost every day, we look askance at laws and judgments that prescribe unconscionably low amounts while awarding compensation or punishment.
If a drunken person makes scenes at a public place or trespasses in your house to cause annoyance, the Indian Penal Code prescribes a maximum fine of Rs 10 according to Section 510.
The Supreme Court gave its imprimatur to the settlement for the world’s worst industrial disaster in the Bhopal case at $470 million. Even the government has now turned penitent and approached the court for a revision, after two decades. Now, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by the Chief Justice of India is hearing this “curative petition”, even as a brother judge wryly remarked that it would take the courts another 26 years to close the case.
Meanwhile, the rate of compensation awarded by Indian courts remains unpredictable and abominably low. A few judgements of the Supreme Court passed in recent weeks in motor vehicle accidents are a pointer to this. Four separate cases, fought by indigent labourers up to the top court, show how tight the purse is held for average citizens, while everyone wants to mulct negligent foreign companies.
In the case, Rudra vs National Insurance Company, a coolie aged 25 was injured in a road accident and lost 58 per cent of his physical ability on his left lower limb and 29 per cent of the whole body. He moved the motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) seeking Rs 4 lakh as compensation. What he got was Rs 40,000. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court felt that the disability was exaggerated and reduced it to 15 per cent. However, it added compensation for pain, conveyance, special food and attendance charges in hospital, and thus raised the total compensation to Rs 1.48 lakh. The youth came up to the Supreme Court. It criticised the high court for going against the medical evidence and reducing the disability. The doctor had said the nature of disability was such that he would not be able to do any manual work for the rest of his life. So it raised the compensation to Rs 3 lakh.
Another such person who lost his ability to work in an accident was awarded Rs 1.70 lakh by the MACT. Though the disability was medically assessed at 23 per cent, the tribunal said he could still do manual labour with one hand and, therefore, reduced the disability to 20 per cent, against medical evidence. The labourer moved the high court, which made another calculation and arrived at Rs 2.22 lakh. His appeal to the Supreme Court (Sri Nagarajappa vs Oriental Insurance Company) was successful as it raised the amount to Rs 4.77 lakh. It said a manual labourer needed both hands and one useless hand would affect his employability and overall ability to work throughout his life. Such sensitivity came to the judges only at the top court and not where the claim originated.
Another victim of road accident also got higher compensation as he went up the judicial ladder (Sant Singh vs Sukhdev Singh). He had suffered permanent disability of 60 per cent. The MACT awarded Rs 1.47 lakh to this 48-year-old “work munshi” who earned Rs 4,000 a month. He appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which enhanced the amount by a princely sum of Rs 15,000. Still dissatisfied with the award, he moved the Supreme Court. It thought that Rs 4.43 lakh would be the “just and fair” amount.
In another such case, C Mohanraju vs United India Assurance, the courts again took its own view on the degree of disability suffered by a silk weaver. Even as the medical evidence was that he lost 25 per cent of the ability in his hands, the MACT arbitrarily decided that it was only 10 per cent and awarded the 35-year-old man Rs 1 lakh. The Karnataka High Court went by the doctor’s opinion and raised the amount to Rs 2.78 lakh. He valiantly went up to the Supreme Court. It raised the disability to 30 per cent as he would no longer be able to do his traditional job. The apex court fixed the sum at Rs 3.20 lakh.
The Motor Vehicles Act is itself a stumbling block in awarding adequate compensation. It has fixed arbitrary sums in an old schedule, ignoring the rise in income and devaluation of the rupee. Though this schedule has been dubbed as unworkable and faulty by earlier judgments, it has now become the bench mark for tribunals and courts by sheer usage. Very soon, the measly sums and bad arithmetic in the schedule would be as laughable as the Rs 10 fine for the drunken rogue.
