Courts can't nit-pick and award niggardly amounts in road accident cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has asked the courts not to adopt stereotypical or myopic attitude in granting compensation in road accident cases as the physical limitations and disabilities suffered by the victims leave deep mental and emotional scars upon them, depriving them to live a wholesome life.

"The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims," a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari and S Ravindra Bhat said.

The court pointed out severe limitations inflicted due to injuries undermined the dignity, which is now recognised as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual.

"From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, which itself is the most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim," the bench added.

In a judgement delivered on Thursday, the top court partly allowed an appeal by Pappu Yadav, a typist by occupation, who lost his right arm in a road accident in 2012 and enhanced total compensation from Rs 7,77,600 to Rs 19,65,600 in view of loss of earning capacity and future prospects.

The court said as a typist and data entry operator, full functioning of appellant's hands was essential to his livelihood. The extent of his permanent disablement was assessed at 89%. However, the High Court halved it to 45% on an entirely wrong application of some ‘proportionate’ principle, which was illogical and is unsupportable in law.

"The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready application," Justice Bhat said, who authored the judgement on behalf of the bench.

The income generating capacity of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected. Maybe, it is not to the extent of 89%, as he has one arm left, nevertheless assessment of disability cannot be 45%, it is assessed at 65% in the circumstances of this case, the court added.