It is difficult to measure the worth of a human being in terms of money but it is the one thing which accident tribunals are called upon to do every day. The Supreme Court has often stressed that "the determination of the amount should not be niggardly, since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales" (Concord Insurance vs Nirmala Devi).
But going through recent judgments of the Supreme Court, the judges seem to be shy to award a 'just' amount, though statutes like the Motor Vehicles Act enjoin them to do so. The motor vehicles accident tribunals are quite tight-fisted when a claim of a widow, children or dependents is decided. The judges there have difficulty in reading big numbers. The higher the claimants go up in the judicial ladder, the higher the amount they get.
The most-recent such case decided by the Supreme Court is Munna Lal vs Vipin Kumar. The tribunal in Delhi granted Rs 6.59 lakh to the dependents for the death of a youth, a pandit. The high court raised it to Rs 12.61 lakh.
On further appeal, the Supreme Court raised it to Rs 18.36 lakh. Being a bachelor, the court allowed 50 per cent towards personal expenses and an additional 50 per cent for future prospects.
The discrepancy in calculation by courts is due to the wrong application of the principles laid down in Supreme Court judgments. The judgment read: "The never-ending dispute on computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is due to the absence of any statutory and a strait-jacket formula, leaving grey areas despite several attempts made by this court to lay down guidelines. Compensation would basically depend on the evidence available in a case and the formulas shown by the courts are only guidelines for the computation of the compensation."
Though there is a schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act to compute compensation, it is riddled with mistakes. In its judgment in UP State Road Transport vs Trilok Chandra, the Supreme Court remarked the formula was "unworkable and [there was] lack in elementary arithmetic". However, lawmakers have not amended the schedule since it was introduced in 1994.
Very often, judges ignore the schedule and strive to be "just" as commanded by the Act. But again, the assessments vary. In one case, B T Krishnappa vs United Insurance Co, a mason suffered 48 per cent disability in a road accident. The tribunal awarded him Rs 1.55 lakh, scaling down the doctors' assessment of disability to 20 per cent on its own. Since the victim was a mason, the reasoning was that he could work using one leg. The Karnataka High Court, on appeal, raised the amount by a princely Rs 34,000.
The measure of disability is one of the issues where courts go wrong. Other grey areas are life expectancy, expenses on treatments caused by the accident, future prospects of promotion and higher income, the age and number of dependents and loss of affection and pleasures of life. On all these, and many more imponderables, the judges have discretion to a great extent.
If their estimates are low, as is often the case in tribunals and lower courts, the victims or their dependents have no choice but to go on appeal. It takes years to get a final verdict. Often they do not want to add the agony of litigation to their physical and financial distress. They are compelled to sign 'contingency fee' agreements with lawyers, which are a wager that allow the lawyer to take away a high proportion of the decreed amount if you win the case. The percentage of cut is often so high that the contingency fee is often explained as: If you lose the case you get nothing; if you win, the lawyer gets everything.
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
