• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • News/Articles
  • Compensation for permanent disability: National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Umar Ghulam Zargar & Ors. (2020)

Latest News

Back

Compensation for permanent disability: National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Umar Ghulam Zargar & Ors. (2020)

Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  29 Oct 2020     Views:403

Date of judgment: 25/06/2020

Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar

Facts:

On the 2nd of April, 2007, Umar Ghulam Zargar (respondent), a young boy aged 15, met with a motor vehicle accident that caused serious injuries. Due to the grievous nature of his injuries, he slipped into comatose and was declared to be 100% permanently disabled. He was discharged after 2 months, with no hope for recovery and was unable to eat by himself, required a special diet, special bed, special transportation, and constant supervision.

A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Srinagar passed a verdict in favor of the respondent and ordered the insurance company (appellant) to pay Rs. 18,30,000 and asked the driver of the vehicle to pay Rs. 25,000 to the respondent’s father. The order also directed the insurance company to pay an interest rate of 6% from the date on which the claim petition was raised and the entire sum had to be paid within 2 months, failing which an interest rate of 9% from the date of default would be imposed. The present matter is an appeal by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation alleging it was formed without any basis and that the penal rate of interest could not be effectuated.

Issues:

Whether the compensatory award ordered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) is unreasonable and exorbitant

Whether the Tribunal could impose an additional penal rate of interest for default

Judgment:

The Tribunal issued an overhead break-up for the total sum to be compensated by the appellants to the respondent. The break-up included Rs. 4,00,000 for medical expenses and the same was questioned by the Insurance company as the medical bills up to the date of discharge came to Rs. 98,510.88. The Hon’ble High Court justified the sum as there was proof that the boy had been re-admitted on later dates and that the state of the respondent was such that he would require treatment throughout his life. The judgment established that ordering compensation merely on the basis of bills for someone who would require prolonged treatment would not be reasonable. The Tribunal’s move of awarding a sum greater than that of the medical bills produced was also upheld as the Court categorically held on humanitarian principles that one could not expect the parent of a child in such a state to maintain a record of all his medical bills.

The appellants further challenged the awarding of Rs. 2,00,000 for transportation that allegedly lacked basis. The Hon’ble judges yet again relied on the present condition of the respondent as the need for special transportation for treatment throughout his life, was an incontrovertible expenditure. The mental state of the guardians was viewed to be one whereby restoration and well-being of the boy would be their number one priority and not the collecting and producing of various bills. Expecting a guardian to produce bills for every single expense was held to be unnecessary and irrational. The sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was upheld to be formed on the grounds of the frequency of visits and the multiplier applicable to the age group and thus justified.

Another overhead challenged by the appellants was that of attendant charges amounting to Rs. 2,70,000 and loss of income to the respondent’s father, totalling to an additional 90,000 Rupees. It was recognized that the father had given up on the job that earned Rs. 150 per day to take care of his son and be available for him round the clock. The appellants contested that there was no need for a hefty sum in the name of attendant charges as his father was taking the case. Nevertheless, the court rightly dismissed it on the ground that attendant charges would include future charges as well, and taking care of the boy by the father was not a ground to deny that overhead.

The sum of Rs. 2,70,000 was found to have been formed by calculating the attendant charges for 15 years by the Tribunal which in the opinion of the Court was on a lower level. Reliance was placed on the multiplier system by the Supreme Court in Gobald Service Motor Service Limited v. R.M.K. Veluswami & Ors. (1962). The correct and most reasonable multiplier was held to be founded on factors such as inflation rate, rate of interest payable on a lump sum, the life expectancy of claimants, and uncertainties of life. The Hon’ble 2 judge bench acknowledged that the multiplier system was the best suited to award compensation for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It was identified that the multiplier ought to have been 18 instead of 15 as used by the Tribunal. Despite this, the court decided to not interfere and modify the award for attendant charges awarded by the Tribunal as the quantum of merit was not challenged by the respondent. A similar view was adopted with regard to the compensation for a feeding tube, special diet, and bed as the Tribunal had provided only for the initial purchase and hadn’t considered the need to change them over the years. Yet, the quantum of compensation was left unaltered as the Court merely stuck to the contention raised by the appellants i.e., formed without any basis.

In the case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (2013), it was established by the Apex Court that, compensation for pain and suffering as well as a loss of amenities should exceed Rs. 6,00,000 if the disability is more than 90%. Nonetheless, despite suffering from 100% disability, the Tribunal had awarded a sum total of Rs. 5,50,000 and the same was not modified by the Court merely on the grounds that the respondents had not sought greater compensation and were content with the Tribunal’s award.  The Court even recognized that the Tribunal had failed to consider the lost future income by the respondent boy but yet again decided not to alter the compensation as the claimants had not challenged the quantum of merit.

The appellants then brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent passed away during the pendency of the appeal and used it as a basis to further seek the striking down of various overhead expenses due to the lack of need for the same. The Court directed that the death of the respondent would not make a difference to the overheads as the date of passing the award was relevant while assessing compensation and not the events that followed it.

Finally, with regard to the penal rate of interest at 9&, the appellants emphasized the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur (2004). The decision entails that a penal rate of interest cannot be imposed after a Tribunal has decided to impose simple imprisonment with particulars. In light of the same, the High Court struck down the imposition of a 9% rate of interest while holding the rest of the impugned award by the Tribunal to be valid.

Conclusion:

The verdict was penned by a single judge bench at Srinagar. The validity of the award by the Tribunal was upheld by the Court as they found it was formed on just and reasonable grounds and not exorbitantly. The Hon’ble Court had recognized that the award by the Tribunal was towards the lower side and failed to include the essential overhead of loss of future income for the respondent who eventually lost his life during the pendency of the proceedings. Nonetheless, despite bringing it to the notice of the parties, no step was taken to increase the quantum of punishment merely because the respondent seemed content with the award of the Tribunal.  It is also pertinent to mention that the compensation for the hardships faced by the respondent by suffering from 100% disability was still lower than the standard set by the Supreme Court. Despite adopting a magnanimous approach initially with regard to the sum of compensation for bills produced, by restricting only to the claims of the parties, the respondents were not awarded the higher sum of damages they were entitled to. In a recent case in Dubai, a 5-year-old boy who suffered from 100% permanent disability due to rash and reckless driving, was awarded a compensation of 2 million Dirhams (approx. Rs. 4 crore), showing the stark contrast in motor accident claims. [1]

[1] Ismail Sebugwaawo,  Dh2 million compensation for the family of boy injured in Al Ain crash, Khaleej Times (28 Oct. 2020),https://www.khaleejtimes.com/news/crime-and-courts/dh2-million-compensation-for-family-of-boy-injured-in-al-ain-crash.

 


Document:


Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  29 Oct 2020     Views:403

News Updates

The Legal Framework of Bail Conditions in India: B...
25 Oct 2024     Views:6051
Changing an Arbitrator Mid-Proceeding: Legal Frame...
23 Oct 2024     Views:5473
IMF Retains India's FY25 GDP Growth Forecast at 7%...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5456
The Evolving Landscape of Russian Anti-Suit Injunc...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5248
Hyundai’s IPO vs Competitors: How the Auto Giant...
15 Oct 2024     Views:5273
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Post Decree...
14 Oct 2024     Views:4919
SEBI Issues Checklist for AIFs, Their Managers, an...
08 Oct 2024     Views:5294
The Siemens v. Russian Railroads Case...
07 Oct 2024     Views:5285
Empowering Minds in Confinement: Bombay HC’s Lan...
03 Oct 2024     Views:5404
The Dynamics of Novation in Contract Law and Its I...
02 Oct 2024     Views:5590
SEBI Establishes Consistent Evaluation Standards f...
01 Oct 2024     Views:5297
Landmark Decision by Austrian Supreme Court on Arb...
30 Sep 2024     Views:5267
Key Considerations for Indian Commercial Claims...
25 Sep 2024     Views:5218
Boom or Bust: Africa’s Oil Giants Face Declining...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5341
The Growing Role of Arbitration in Intellectual Pr...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5294
Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:5623
SEBI's Employee Grievances Prompt Formation of Wor...
19 Sep 2024     Views:5448
Environmental Law in India: Challenges and Opportu...
18 Sep 2024     Views:6291
Navigating the New Legal Landscape of Exclusive Ju...
16 Sep 2024     Views:5413
The Anatomy of Joint Venture Breakups in India (an...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5760
The Integration of ESG in India's M&A Landscape...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5656
Future of AI in Legal Systems and Conflict Resolut...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5847
World Health Assembly Revises International Health...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5699
Pokemon GO Fans Concerned Over Restrictive New Ter...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5812
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awa...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5599
Understanding the Process of Issuing Summons in In...
11 Jul 2023     Views:8987
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)...
10 Jul 2023     Views:7531
Understanding the Mental Health Act in India: A St...
09 Jul 2023     Views:7571
Combating Manual Scavenging in India: A Call for S...
07 Jul 2023     Views:7364
Impleadment in Supreme Court of India: A Comprehen...
05 Jul 2023     Views:8329
Unraveling the Distinction: Culpable Homicide vs. ...
03 Jul 2023     Views:7668
Understanding the Difference between Money Bills a...
02 Jul 2023     Views:6207
Understanding the Civil Procedure Code in India: A...
01 Jul 2023     Views:6989
The Rights of Criminals in India: Upholding Justic...
30 Jun 2023     Views:6247
Exploring the Differences between the US and India...
29 Jun 2023     Views:6253
What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register Your F...
26 Jun 2023     Views:6500
Timeline of Environmental Protocols: A Global Effo...
25 Jun 2023     Views:6200
How to Deal with Cheque Bounce Cases in India...
24 Jun 2023     Views:6183
Pursuing a Lucrative Litigation Career in Indian L...
22 Jun 2023     Views:6230
Understanding the Emergency Provisions of India: S...
21 Jun 2023     Views:6198
Environment Legislation in India: A Comprehensive ...
20 Jun 2023     Views:6554
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
18 Jun 2023     Views:6049
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
17 Jun 2023     Views:6081
Timeline of Same-Sex Laws in India: A Journey Towa...
16 Jun 2023     Views:6525
Sir Creek Dispute and Legal Implications...
15 Jun 2023     Views:6725
Jurisprudence of NDPS Laws in India: A Comprehensi...
14 Jun 2023     Views:6299
Impleadment Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide to ...
13 Jun 2023     Views:6736
Understanding Continuing Mandamus: A Powerful Judi...
12 Jun 2023     Views:8713
Res Judicata: The Doctrine of Finality in Legal Pr...
10 Jun 2023     Views:6733
Mastering the Art of Legal Drafting: A Comprehensi...
08 Jun 2023     Views:6398
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP...
07 Jun 2023     Views:12053
Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:6115
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:6970
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:6544
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:6250
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:6483
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:6121
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:6570
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:6241
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:6686
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:6902
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:7130
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:11020
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:6338
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:6205
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:7335
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:6052
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:6064
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:7644
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:6591
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:6142
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:6186
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:6132
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:8234
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:6414
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:6053
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:5906
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:6993
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:5930
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:6346
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:6184
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:5871
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:5865
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:6027
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:8462
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:7072
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:6148
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:5861
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:6072
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:5634
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:5856
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:5685
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:6289
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:6408
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:6133
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:6610
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:5914
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:6055
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:6644
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:6381
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:96364
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:73940
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:71358
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:70492
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:59858
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.