Justice ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI of Bombay High Court while deciding an appeal filed by the claimant as well as the insurance company in an MACT case held that "Nevertheless, the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial legislation, enables the Tribunal or the Court to provide relief to the victim or the family by awarding compensation which appears to be just. The object and endeavour is to provide much needed financial stability to the victim and the family to navigate the change with minimal trauma. The quantum of compensation has to be determined keeping in view the sufferings of the victim and his family and as held by the Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551, by venturing into some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused, at the same time viewing the aforesaid elements with objective standards."

The Bombay High Court also held that in this endeavor, the court also is empowered to grant relief more than what has been claimed by the claimant and the Court should be mindful that a serious injury not only imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendent trauma of the victim’s having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in Judge’s mind whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims.

The Court noted that "as on the date of the accident, the Claimant was 26 years of age and he was married. The evidence on record reveals that the claimant had suffered multiple injuries viz., rib fracture with lung contusion, Grade III liver tear, injury on chest and abdomen, spinal cord injury resulting in traumatic paraplegia and consequent 100% permanent disablement."

The Court observed the seriousness of the issue observed that "Paraplegia also impacts marital life of the spouse, who inevitably becomes the main care taker or care giver and in the process shared vows, friendship, intimacy and emotional support become a thing of the past. The children too do not remain untouched with this tragedy, as impaired mobility limit parenting responsibilities and results in depriving the children of guidance, love, care and affection of the parent which is essential for the development and welfare of the children. Paraplegia of the sole bread earner also puts infirm parents in a helpless situation. Monetary compensation howsoever high cannot rebuild the life of the victim or reduce his physical or mental trauma. It cannot restore the shattered dreams of the spouse, bring back lost childhood of the children or relieve the agony of the parents of seeing their child in a vegetative state."

Case Details:-

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1700 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2862 OF 2019
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1700 OF 2012
Yogesh Subhash Panchal …. Appellant
v/s.
Mohd. Hussain Malik, Dhuni
Mohd. Malik and anr. …. Respondents