BENGALURU: Coming to the rescue of an accident victim who suffered permanent disability to his pelvic organ at the age of 14, the high court’s Dharwad bench recently awarded him a higher compensation of Rs 17.6 lakh.
Out of this amount, Rs 10 lakh is for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and Rs 3,62,880 towards loss of future prospects and six per cent interest from the date of the award till actual payment.
In September 2011, Basavaraj, a resident of Ranebennur in Haveri district, was hit by a truck. A teenager then, he suffered 40 per cent permanent disability around his pelvic region. Basavaraj claimed Rs 11,75,000 as compensation. However, on August 4, 2016, a Ranebennur court awarded him Rs 3,73,988.
Basavaraj, who is in his mid-20s now, challenged the award, claiming he was a student and also working as a hotel supplier. He argued that he had suffered a fracture of pubic rami, ruptured urethra, pelvic fracture and fracture of inferior ramus of the right hip bone, resulting in permanent disability.
Claiming that the compensation awarded by the Ranebennur court was on the lower side, Basavaraj’s counsel argued that the petitioner’s marriage prospects have been severely jeopardised and he cannot have a family, owing to the permanent disability he suffered.
On the other hand, counsel for the insurance company claimed that the compensation awarded by the Ranebennur court is just and fair, and further contended that the claimant was not a student as claimed by him and the award of Rs 35,000 towards loss of education is unjustified.
A division bench comprising justices SG Pandit and Anant Ramanath Hegde, after going through the materials placed before the Ranebennur court, said it can be safely concluded that the claimant has suffered permanent disability in respect of his sexual organ as well as around the hip, and the doctor has opined that the situation is irreversible.
The bench noted that the claimant who is deprived of marriage prospects and pleasure of marital life and having children, cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money. Nevertheless, to mitigate his pain and agony, monetary compensation has to be awarded and there should be some logical and rational nexus between the compensation awarded and the pain suffered by the claimant.
“The very object of awarding compensation under non-pecuniary heads in a case relating to death or permanent disability is to restore, as far as possible, the position of the victim, to the situation that existed before the accident. In case of death or permanent disability, though the attempt is to restore the position of the claimant before the accident, no amount of compensation would restore the things as they stood before the accident. Tribunals and courts are entrusted with the task of awarding compensation to mitigate suffering to the best possible extent. However, the object of awarding compensation is not to confer a windfall on the claimant. The court/tribunal has to balance the conflicting claim of the victim and the tortfeasor,” the division bench further observed, while modifying the compensation awarded by the Ranebennur court.
