The Supreme Court said on Wednesday that marriage or living together is an integral part of a person’s natural life. The court increased the compensation amount to Rs 50.87 lakh for a woman with 75 percent intellectual disability due to a road accident. A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan said that the woman was seven years old when the accident took place in 2009 and according to the medical certificate, she is suffering from moderate intellectual disability.
The bench said, her body will continue to grow effectively, but she will always remain like a small child. The court said, the appellant (woman) has not only lost her childhood, but her adult life has also been affected. Marriage and living together is an integral part of a person’s natural life. However, the court also admitted that the woman may be able to give birth to children. But it will be almost impossible for her to experience the normal pleasures of marital life. Therefore, the court increased the compensation of the woman to Rs 50.87 lakh. The woman had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against an order of the Delhi High Court in November 2017. The High Court had ordered to give her a compensation of Rs 11.51 lakh.
The apex court said that the woman will be dependent on someone or the other throughout her life and even with age, she will remain mentally like a second class child. The court said that in June 2009, the woman was walking with her family, when a speeding car hit her. A claim petition for compensation was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, in which she was awarded a compensation of Rs 5.90 lakh. Later, a petition was filed in the High Court on behalf of the woman to increase the amount of compensation, which increased the compensation to Rs 11.51 lakh.
The woman’s lawyer told the Supreme Court that according to the doctor’s certificate, the woman is suffering from 75 percent intellectual disability. The lawyer argued that children suffering from moderate intellectual disability can usually learn skills like a second grade child and can work only under close supervision. While increasing the amount of compensation, the Supreme Court also said that the compensation has been increased under the loss of income or earning capacity to the woman, pain and suffering, loss of marriage opportunities, assistant fees and future medical treatment.
The bench also said that the High Court’s view that the woman would only need a part-time assistant was wrong. On the contrary, our opinion is that the appellant will need a full-time assistant throughout her life. The Supreme Court ordered the insurance company to pay compensation to the woman and said that if any amount has been given earlier, it can be adjusted. With this the bench decided that both the car driver and the insurance company will have to jointly pay the compensation.
