<p>The Supreme Court has said in road accident cases where the victim has suffered permanent disability, the courts should make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimants, by awarding "just compensation". </p>.<p>The efforts must be to substantially ameliorate the misery of the claimant and recognise his actual needs by accounting for the ground realities, it added. </p>.<p>"The very fact that a healthy person turns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship, and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss of self-dignity. Such a claimant must not be viewed as a modern day Oliver Twist, having to make entreaties as the boy in the orphanage in Charles Dickens’s classic, “Please Sir, I want some more”," a bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said. </p>.<p>The court allowed an appeal filed by Jithendran against an order by the Kerala High Court by enhancing his compensation from Rs 14.31 lakh to Rs 27.67 lakh for having lost 100% of his earning capacity for the injuries sustained as a pillion rider after being hit by a speeding car in 2001. The appellant, then a 21-year-old youth, worked in a jewellery shop and earned Rs 4,500 per month.</p>.<p>It agreed to a contention by the counsel for the claimant that though he suffered 69% permanent disability, he lost his 100% earning capacity for having suffered severe impairment of cognitive power. The court also computed annual expenses of a bystander or attendant as he could not perform everyday function without assistance. </p>.<p>"The courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant," Justice Roy said, in the judgement authored by him on behalf of the bench.</p>.<p>The bench said in cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant suffered severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as loss of earning capacity is concerned.</p>.<p>"The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the courts must be conscious of the fact that the permanent disability suffered by the individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities but there are multiple other non-quantifiable implications for the victim," the bench added.</p>.<p>The plea of the victim suffering from a cruel twist of fate, when asking for some more, is not extravagant but is for seeking appropriate recompense to negotiate with the unforeseeable and the fortuitous twists in his impaired life, the bench added.</p>.<p><strong>Check out latest videos from <i data-stringify-type="italic">DH</i>:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said in road accident cases where the victim has suffered permanent disability, the courts should make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimants, by awarding "just compensation". </p>.<p>The efforts must be to substantially ameliorate the misery of the claimant and recognise his actual needs by accounting for the ground realities, it added. </p>.<p>"The very fact that a healthy person turns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship, and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss of self-dignity. Such a claimant must not be viewed as a modern day Oliver Twist, having to make entreaties as the boy in the orphanage in Charles Dickens’s classic, “Please Sir, I want some more”," a bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said. </p>.<p>The court allowed an appeal filed by Jithendran against an order by the Kerala High Court by enhancing his compensation from Rs 14.31 lakh to Rs 27.67 lakh for having lost 100% of his earning capacity for the injuries sustained as a pillion rider after being hit by a speeding car in 2001. The appellant, then a 21-year-old youth, worked in a jewellery shop and earned Rs 4,500 per month.</p>.<p>It agreed to a contention by the counsel for the claimant that though he suffered 69% permanent disability, he lost his 100% earning capacity for having suffered severe impairment of cognitive power. The court also computed annual expenses of a bystander or attendant as he could not perform everyday function without assistance. </p>.<p>"The courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant," Justice Roy said, in the judgement authored by him on behalf of the bench.</p>.<p>The bench said in cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant suffered severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as loss of earning capacity is concerned.</p>.<p>"The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the courts must be conscious of the fact that the permanent disability suffered by the individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities but there are multiple other non-quantifiable implications for the victim," the bench added.</p>.<p>The plea of the victim suffering from a cruel twist of fate, when asking for some more, is not extravagant but is for seeking appropriate recompense to negotiate with the unforeseeable and the fortuitous twists in his impaired life, the bench added.</p>.<p><strong>Check out latest videos from <i data-stringify-type="italic">DH</i>:</strong></p>
