Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court modified the MACT’s award, holding that in cases of 100% permanent disability with prolonged vegetative state, attendant charges should reflect the cost of skilled labour, and compensation should cover two attendants for 24-hour care. The Court directed recalculation of the award, granting enhanced compensation from the date of the accident until the date of the appellant’s demise, payable with interest as per the earlier award.
Facts
The case arose from a road accident on 27.10.2015, where a retired Army personnel, aged 56, was hit by a rashly driven motorcycle, causing severe head injuries, coma, and 100% permanent locomotor disability. The appellant remained in a prolonged vegetative state, requiring continuous medical treatment until his death on 16.02.2022.
He was under the care of a professional nursing attendant during the day and his son, who resigned from his job, during the night, reflecting the need for round-the-clock care. The appellant’s family relocated near Medanta Hospital for treatment, and incurred significant medical and attendant-related expenses.
The MACT awarded compensation of ₹44,59,000, including attendant charges at the rate of ₹9,178 per month for one attendant, calculated using the multiplier method.
Issues
- Whether the MACT erred in awarding attendant charges for only one attendant at the rate applicable to unskilled labour.
- Whether the appellant’s family was entitled to compensation for two attendants for 24-hour care in cases of 100% permanent disability in a vegetative state.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that:
- The appellant required two attendants (12-hour shifts each) due to his condition, being unable to perform any daily activities or voluntary movements, requiring feeding through an NG tube and tracheostomy care.
- The nursing attendant, a B.Sc Nursing graduate, was paid ₹13,000 per month, and the son resigned from his ₹16,500 per month job to act as a night-time caregiver.
- The MACT erred in treating the care requirement as that of only one unskilled attendant, ignoring the Supreme Court’s judgments mandating two attendants for 100% disability cases.
- Reliance was placed on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand to assert that skilled attendant charges and round-the-clock care were justified in such cases, warranting recalculation to ₹18.73 lakhs.
Respondent’s Arguments
The insurance company contended:
- There was no documentary evidence proving payments to a second attendant.
- The son lived with the appellant and thus, the need for a paid second attendant was not demonstrated.
- The requirement for two attendants was not established either before the Tribunal or in the appeal.
- The current award was appropriate based on the available evidence.
Analysis of the Law
The Motor Vehicles Act aims for “just compensation.” In calculating attendant charges, courts have consistently applied the multiplier method, factoring in life expectancy, inflation, interest, and the nature of injuries. In cases of permanent vegetative state with 100% disability, the law recognizes that the injured is entitled to attendant charges reflecting skilled labour rates and for two attendants for 24-hour care.
Precedent Analysis
- Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413: Held that a permanently disabled claimant requiring constant care should be awarded attendant charges based on skilled labour rates, using the multiplier method, and recognizing the need for two attendants for life.
- Abhimanyu Pratap Singh v. Namita Sekhon (2022) 8 SCC 489: Followed Kajal, reiterating two attendants were required for such claimants, and calculations should apply a multiplier for realistic compensation.
- Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692): Held that the High Court erred in awarding part-time unskilled attendant charges for a permanently disabled claimant requiring continuous skilled care.
These judgments were directly relied upon to support enhancement under the head of attendant charges in this case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that:
- The appellant’s condition was undisputedly in a prolonged vegetative state, requiring continuous care.
- The services provided by the son were akin to those of a second attendant due to the inability to hire a second paid attendant, consistent with Kajal and Abhimanyu.
- The requirement was for two attendants working in 12-hour shifts, calculated at the skilled labour rate of ₹11,154 per month.
- The earlier calculation by the MACT using unskilled labour rates and considering only one attendant did not align with established law.
- Recalculation was warranted from the accident date to the date of the appellant’s death, ensuring just compensation to the family.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court modified the MACT award, directing that:
- Attendant charges should be calculated at skilled labour rates of ₹11,154 per month.
- Compensation should cover two attendants for the entire period (27.10.2015 – 16.02.2022).
- The MACT will recalculate the total compensation, adjusting amounts under the head of future medical expenses as necessary.
- Enhanced compensation will carry the same interest rate as in the original award.
The appeal was partly allowed, upholding the principle that “round-the-clock care is a necessity, not a luxury” in cases of severe, lifelong disability.
Implications
- Sets a clear precedent for enhanced compensation for two skilled attendants in cases of 100% permanent disability and vegetative state.
- Reinforces that caregiving by family members can qualify under “attendant charges” where financial constraints prevent hiring additional staff.
- Emphasizes the courts’ commitment to realistic, humane compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for accident victims with lifelong disability.
FAQs
1. Can families claim attendant charges if a family member quits a job to care for an accident victim?
Yes, as held in this judgment, where a family member provides full-time care in lieu of a hired attendant due to financial constraints, compensation under “attendant charges” can still be awarded.
2. Why did the Court award compensation for two attendants?
Because in cases of 100% permanent disability with vegetative state, continuous 24-hour care is required, necessitating two attendants working in 12-hour shifts.
3. Can compensation for attendant charges be calculated using the multiplier method?
Yes, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, the multiplier method should be used for attendant charges in cases of lifelong care needs, ensuring fair and realistic compensation.
