These are days of scams involving long numbers. But when it comes to computing the value of human life, many judges don’t go beyond writing five digits. A look at the compensation granted in road accidents by tribunals and courts would show that the price of life and limb has not moved higher than the miserable rate at which the government settled the Union Carbide case.
Last week, the Supreme Court put an end to an 11-year-old litigation for compensation for the crippling injury suffered by an eight-year-old boy when a bike hit him on the Mysore road. He was a class III student who dreamed of a sportsman’s career. But after the long hospitalisation, he came out carrying a bundle of permanent physical handicaps.
When his father moved the motor vehicles accident tribunal, it awarded an ignominious sum of Rs 77,000. The judge assessed the “loss of amenities in life” at Rs 30,000. After nine years, the Karnataka High Court raised the compensation by Rs 23,000. The Supreme Court was kinder. It raised the amount substantially to Rs 4 lakh (Michael vs Oriental Insurance Co). It referred to the “dreadful accident” that caused deformity of the body. The Supreme Court stated that the age of the boy, now 19 years, was a relevant factor, which the courts did not take into account.
“The suffering due to such physical disaster cannot be measured in terms of money precisely, but having regard to the present-day living conditions and the extent to which his aspirations came to demolished by suffering a permanent disability, the insurance company becomes responsible for adequately compensating him,” the judgment said. The company in question did not appear at all to contest the appeal, presumably because the amount granted by the tribunal was less than the lawyer’s fees for one hearing.
Some time ago, a mason lost half his physical faculties in a road accident. The tribunal awarded him Rs 1.55 lakh, rejecting the medical report about the degree of disablement. Moreover, the judge wrote that he could do with one leg, since construction work was done by many people jointly (BT Krishnappa vs United Insurance Co). The Karnataka High Court raised the amount by Rs 34,000. On further appeal, the Supreme Court chastised the courts below and remarked that “these areas need proper introspection and a more sensitive approach as the victim being a mason represents the weaker section of the community”.
The court has consistently urged trial judges not to be tight-fisted while awarding compensation in deserving cases. The pain and loss owing to death or injuries are difficult to be assessed in financial terms. In Divisional Controller vs Mahadeva Shetty (2003), the court stated that the loss could not be weighed in “golden scales”. However, tribunals must consider the loss of earning capacity, deprivation of mental pleasure and impairment of life expectancy as important factors. In a leading case, R D Hattangadi vs Pest Control India, the court remarked that compensation should be fixed “with some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability”. However, judges are still trapped in their conservative mindset.
There are judgments like that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which stated that if the husband is earning, the loss of his earning wife in an accident is no cause for filing a claim. However, in a similar case, the Rajasthan High Court rejected this view put forward by the insurance company (United India Insurance vs Ghewar Ram).
The tribunals can award more than what a victim claims. In Sanjay Batham vs Munnalal, the claim of an unskilled labourer was for Rs 4.2 lakh but the tribunal awarded him a princely sum of Rs 25,000. The Madhya Pradesh High Court raised it to Rs 2 lakh, and the Supreme Court gave him Rs 5.62 lakh. Very few persons in his position can climb the pyramid of courts. But those who do may get a fair compensation. Govind, 24, who lost a leg claimed Rs 10 lakh and got Rs 2.56 from the tribunal. The amount went up at each ladder of the judicial hierarchy and the Supreme Court gave him Rs 9.54, remarking that “he will not be able to enjoy his life. The prospects of marriage have considerably reduced” (Govind Yadav vs New India Assurance).
Evaluating human life for purposes of compensation is a tough task for the judges. Some 17 people die on the road every hour, and many more are crippled for life in this country, which lead the world in this field. Claims are mounting with more motor vehicles wobbling on bad roads, illiterate drivers and fake licences. The courts have to work within an outdated law, which has a ridiculous schedule for computing compensation. The figures in the table don’t add up and the falling value of rupee has not been considered for more than a quarter of a century. And there is a pile-up of knotty issues referred to larger benches of the Supreme Court and abandoned on the legal highway.
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
