The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Thane has awarded Rs 41.71 lakh in compensation to Monesh alias Manish Vijay Sutar, who suffered life-altering injuries in a road accident 14 years ago as a minor.
In an order passed on Tuesday, MACT member R.V. Mohite held the owner and insurer of the offending trailer truck jointly and severally liable for the compensation.
Sutar, a resident of Bhiwandi, was 12 years old at the time of the accident on May 8, 2011. He was riding pillion on a motorcycle with his father when a trailer truck hit them from behind on the Wada-Bhiwandi road. Sutar`s father was dragged for about 30 feet and died on the spot.
Sutar himself sustained devastating injuries after the trailer’s wheels ran over his lower body, causing a complete perineal tear, multiple fractures to his pelvic bones, and a ruptured urethra. Following the accident, he underwent extensive treatment in Bhiwandi and Thane.
He had to undergo a uroplasty operation, and doctors advised him to use a catheter for the rest of his life due to permanent damage to his urethra. This condition leads to frequent infections, continuous pain, and results in the loss of his future married life.
The owner of the trailer remained ex parte, failing to file a written statement.
The offending vehicle`s insurer, however, disputed the age of the claimant and the medical expenses incurred, and contended the accident was caused by the motorcycle rider`s negligence.
After hearing the two sides, the tribunal concluded the trailer driver was rash and negligent.
The claimant, being a pillion rider, couldn`t have avoided the rear-end collision, and his testimony remained credible.
Crucially, the 35-foot-long tyre marks at the accident scene indicated the trailer`s excessive speed and the driver`s inability to control the vehicle, even after braking, leading to the fatal dragging of the claimant`s father, as per the order.
The tribunal acknowledged the severe, permanent injuries, but assessed the claimant`s functional disability at 40 per cent, and not the 52 per cent as claimed, aligning with principles of a Supreme Court ruling.
A notional income of Rs 12,000 per month and a multiplier of 18 (based on a case) were applied.
The tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs 41,7l,520, including for medical treatment – Rs 13.5 lakh, loss of future earnings -Rs 10,36,800, future prospects – Rs 4,14,720, pain, suffering and loss of amenities – Rs 6 lakh, loss of marriage prospects – Rs 3 lakh, future medical treatment- Rs 4 lakh, special diet- Rs 15,000, transportation – Rs 15,000 and housemaid service – Rs 40,000.
The Rs 6 lakh granted for the pain, suffering and loss of amenities recognised the claimant`s lifelong reliance on a catheter, inability to urinate normally, multiple pelvic fractures, loss of childhood experiences due to the accident at the age of 12 and the profound loss of his future married life and ability to have children.
On the loss of marriage prospects, the tribunal specifically said, “Admittedly, due to the rupture of the urethra, the claimant has lost his sexual life. He cannot become a father in future. Thus, he has lost his marital life. So, the claimant is entitled to get an amount of Rs 3 lakh for the loss of marital prospects.”
The tribunal also acknowledged the undisputed need for future medical treatment, stating, “It is not disputed that the claimant has to use a catheter with a urine bag for his entire life.”
“There are chances of repeated infection in the urethra and urinary bladder due to continuous use of a catheter. The claimant has to visit the doctor every month for changing the catheter and taking treatment in case of infection, if any. So it would not be unjust to award Rs 4 lakh for future medical expenses,” it said.
The tribunal ordered both opponents to jointly and severally pay the awarded amount with interest at nine per cent per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.
Of the compensation, Rs 25 lakh is to be invested in a fixed deposit for five years in the claimant`s name, with the remaining amount is to be disbursed via an account payee cheque, the tribunal added.
(With PTI inputs)
