Rajasthan High Court Enhances Compensation Of Paralysed Road-Accident Victim To ₹1.9 Cr, Says It’s Not Charity But Moral Necessity
Whereas listening to a problem to the compensation of Rs. 1.49 crores awarded by the motor accident tribunal to a 21-year-old girl, Rajasthan Excessive Courtroom noticed that the 100% decrease physique paralysis of the road-accident sufferer was not simply an harm, however a “deep enduring rupture within the material of her life” that affected her sense of identification, independence and confidence.
The excessive courtroom thus enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,49,88,153 Crores awarded by the tribunal to Rs. 1,90,68,153 Crores.
The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena additional opined that any assist or compensation acquired by her whether or not from the authorized system or the society at giant was not a favour however a essential step in direction of justice, inclusion and human dignity, and the identical should acknowledge not simply the price of medical case however the lack of alternatives, dignity and desires. The courtroom stated that it had positioned limitations to her path to household life and created heavy burden for individuals who liked and supported her.
“In circumstances of grievous and everlasting incapacity, corresponding to 100% paralysis of the decrease physique, the courts should undertake a complete strategy to find out simply compensation. This strategy should embrace not solely medical and monetary implications but additionally the irreversible disruption of private autonomy, academic potential, skilled aspirations, and social well-being.”
“Enhanced compensation just isn’t a windfall; it’s a ethical and authorized necessity. It’s an try by the justice system to no less than partially restore what was taken from her – future, a physique, an opportunity to reside on her personal phrases. Something much less can be an injustice too nice to disregard.”
The claimant was a 21 yr outdated ladies finding out at Nationwide Institute of Expertise, Uttarakhand, who was hit by a car owing to rash and negligent driving by the motive force leading to 100% paralysis of her physique under the waist. She was awarded round Rs. 1.5 Crores as compensation by the tribunal. This compensation was challenged by the respondents for being excessively disproportionate, and in addition by the claimant for being insufficient.
After listening to the contentions, the Courtroom noticed that the 100% incapacity of the decrease physique was not merely a medical situation however a life altering occasion affecting the person bodily, emotionally, socially and economically. The Courtroom highlighted varied methods through which the incapacity impacted the person’s life.
It was acknowledged that the incident not solely brutally interrupted the skilled journey of the claimant who was on the brink of it, but additionally gave her emotional trauma owing to the lack of autonomy over her physique for even day by day routine actions.
The Courtroom additional highlighted that public infrastructure in lots of areas remained inaccessible for disabled individuals, making even easy outings or journey troublesome and infrequently humiliating.
Moreover, the Courtroom defined how the harm may also drastically diminish the prospects of any romantic relationships or marriage for sufferer. It was held that,
“There’s usually a social stigma hooked up to incapacity. Individuals might assume {that a} paralyzed particular person is incapable of being a romantic associate, of managing a family, or of bearing and elevating kids—regardless that these assumptions are regularly incorrect…Even when she does discover somebody who loves and accepts her, she might hesitate to enter right into a relationship because of inner fears—concern of rejection, concern of being seen as a burden, or concern of not having the ability to meet conventional expectations of a associate or partner…Consequently, the emotional toll of presumably being disadvantaged of romantic companionship or household life could be devastating”
The Courtroom additionally highlighted the impression on the woman’s household opining that folks usually carry the emotional burden of believing that it was their responsibility to guard their youngster, and watching her battle with despair, frustration, and isolation took a deep toll on their psychological well being.
On this gentle, reference was made to the Supreme Courtroom case of Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar through which Part 168 of the Motor Automobiles Act delineating “simply compensation” was interpreted in a broad and liberal method within the favour of the victims past a mere mathematical calculation. It included holistic analysis of ache, struggling, lack of facilities, future medical wants and the impression on the life’s trajectory.
Additional reference was made to the Apex Courtroom’s case of Erudhaya Priya v State Specific Transport Company Ltd. through which it was emphasised that when a younger woman suffered from 100% everlasting incapacity, compensation should replicate her lack of future prospects, marriageability and unbiased life.
On this background, the Courtroom dominated that, “any compensation should replicate constitutional values—particularly Article 21 (proper to life with dignity), Article 14 (equality earlier than regulation), and Article 15 (safety Towards discrimination, together with on incapacity grounds). Denial of ample compensation quantities to a second injustice—compounding the unique improper with institutional apathy…This compensation just isn’t charity—it’s a rightful acknowledgment of the everlasting damages inflicted on her means to reside a full, unbiased, and dignified life.”
“Her accident was not her fault. It was a consequence of another person’s negligence. That negligence has now sentenced her to a lifetime of limitation and hardship. If the justice system fails to acknowledge this struggling with ample compensation, it provides insult to harm. The regulation should not merely rely the rupees misplaced, however the desires denied.”
Title: Kumari Neelam v Jai Prakash Natani & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 224
