The Delhi High Court has enhanced the compensation payable to a 39-year-old man who was left in a comatose state with 100% permanent physical impairment following a road accident in February 2022.
Justice Anish Dayal observed that in cases where an injured claimant remains in a comatose or vegetative state, quantification of compensation requires a reasonable estimation based on surrounding circumstances and practical realities, since actual and future expenses cannot always be precisely ascertained or awarded solely on the basis of proved expenditure.
The Court held that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be awarded on account of pittance and that courts must ensure that the amount awarded is just, reasonable and adequate.
The Court accordingly enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1.52 crore to Rs. 4.26 crore, awarding an additional Rs. 2.73 crore along with interest at 7.5% per annum.
The injured man, Bharat Ghai, was travelling with his wife, minor children and mother when the accident occurred on February 11, 2022. After parking their car near BSF Camp in Chhawala, Najafgarh, Ghai was helping his children alight from the vehicle when a Maruti Swift car hit him.
His head struck and got stuck against the windshield of the offending vehicle, following which he was dragged for approximately 20-30 feet.
He subsequently suffered a severe hypoxic brain injury and has remained in a comatose state since the accident. His disability certificate recorded 100% permanent physical impairment and stated that his condition was not likely to improve.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded him compensation of Rs. 1,52,76,996. Challenging the award, Ghai, through his wife, sought enhancement on several grounds, including inadequate compensation for future medical expenses, physiotherapy, nursing and attendant charges, and loss of future income.
The Court set aside the Tribunal's approach of calculating Ghai's annual income solely on the basis of his Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2021-22, which showed an income of Rs. 2,48,153.
Justice Dayal noted that Ghai was a self-employed event management professional whose income was naturally variable. The Court observed that it was unfair to draw an adverse inference from the family's failure to file his income tax return for Assessment Year 2022-23, considering that he had been rendered comatose in the accident.
Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rashmirekha Tripathy v. Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court held that the average income reflected in the ITRs of the preceding three years should be considered for determining the income of self-employed individuals.
Accordingly, it calculated his annual benchmark income at Rs. 4,95,943, taking the average of his income for Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22.
The Court also set aside the deduction of Rs. 9,95,015 made by the Tribunal towards the amount received under Ghai's medical insurance policy.
The Court allowed Ghai's claim towards pharmacy expenses, observing that the bills were supported by corresponding medical advice and treatment records.
The Tribunal had restricted the claim of approximately Rs. 19.76 lakh towards pharmacy expenses to Rs. 3 lakh, primarily due to the absence of corresponding medical prescriptions.
However, after examining a tabulation of 111 invoices, along with the corresponding medical records and advice of the treating doctor, the Court found no reason to reject the expenses.
It accordingly enhanced the compensation towards pharmacy bills to approximately Rs. 19.76 lakh.
The Court also awarded Rs. 90 lakh towards future medical expenses, observing that the injured claimant would require continuous medical treatment and care throughout his life.
The Court, however, declined to award compensation towards loss of consortium, despite acknowledging the unfortunate circumstances faced by Ghai and his family.
The Court also refused to interfere with the rejection of claims supported only by photocopies of bills, as the claimant had failed to produce the supporting documents before it.
The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,73,32,151, along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, before the MACT within six weeks.
The Court also directed that any balance amount from the original compensation, if not already released, be paid to the claimant in a lump sum to enable his wife to discharge the borrowing liability incurred by her.
The appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjeev Ralli, along with advocates Chetanya Baweja, Ravi Kant Yadav and Nivedita Sharma. Advocate Sunanda Nimisha appeared for the insurance company.