Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon: Enhanced Compensation in Motor Vehicle Accident Case
The case of Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Another is a crucial Supreme Court judgment that deals with compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, particularly concerning injuries leading to permanent disability. This case focuses on the claim of a minor victim seeking enhanced compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident. The Supreme Court examined whether the awarded compensation was just and fair in light of the victim’s lifelong suffering and disability.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred on June 2, 2009, when the appellant, a seven-year-old girl, was walking home with her mother and brother from National Bal Bhawan, New Delhi. While crossing the road on a zebra crossing at a red light, she was hit by a speeding car (bearing registration no. DL-3C-AX-1502), driven negligently by the respondent.
As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries, including a traumatic brain injury and multiple fractures. The victim’s father, acting on her behalf, filed a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), seeking damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of future prospects, and other heads.
Tribunal’s Award
The MACT, after examining the evidence, awarded the appellant a total compensation of ₹5,90,750, along with interest at 7.5% per annum. The breakup of the compensation was as follows:
| Head | Amount (₹) |
|---|---|
| Medical expenses | 32,000 |
| Loss of earning capacity due to disability | 1,68,750 |
| Pain and suffering | 50,000 |
| Future medical treatment | 30,000 |
| Attendant charges | 15,000 |
| Loss of amenities of life | 1,00,000 |
| Loss of future prospects | 1,00,000 |
| Special education expenses | 75,000 |
| Conveyance and special diet | 20,000 |
| Total | 5,90,750 |
High Court’s Enhancement
Dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the appellant approached the Delhi High Court, seeking an enhancement of the compensation. The High Court re-evaluated the evidence and increased the compensation to ₹11,51,000, awarding an additional ₹5,60,000 with a higher interest rate of 9% per annum.
Arguments by the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that:
- The awarded compensation failed to consider the victim’s lifelong dependence on an attendant due to her disability.
- Expert medical testimony confirmed that she had sustained 75% moderate mental retardation, impairing her ability to function independently.
- The Tribunal’s assessment of future earning loss was inadequate.
- Additional compensation was required under the heads of future medical treatment, special education, and loss of marriage prospects.
Arguments by the Respondents
The insurance company argued that:
- The High Court had already been generous in increasing the compensation.
- The Tribunal’s assessment was based on existing judicial principles and needed no further modification.
- There was a likelihood of improvement in the victim’s condition, reducing the need for lifetime attendant care.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court reviewed the principles governing compensation in personal injury cases and examined relevant precedents, including:
- Kajal v. Jagdish Chand – Recognizing that compensation should consider a victim’s lifelong disability.
- Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance Co. – Establishing guidelines for assessing attendant charges and loss of marriage prospects.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi – Providing a structured approach to awarding future loss of income.
The Court emphasized:
“Compensation must be just and fair, ensuring the victim and their family do not suffer financial hardships due to an accident caused by another’s negligence.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation as follows:
| Head | Revised Amount (₹) |
|---|---|
| Medical expenses | 32,000 |
| Loss of earning capacity | 13,18,000 |
| Pain and suffering | 15,00,000 |
| Future medical treatment | 5,00,000 |
| Attendant charges | 9,42,000 |
| Loss of amenities | 1,00,000 |
| Loss of future prospects | 1,00,000 |
| Special education expenses | 75,000 |
| Conveyance and special diet | 20,000 |
| Loss of marriage prospects | 5,00,000 |
| Total | 50,87,000 |
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring adequate compensation for accident victims, particularly minors with lifelong disabilities. The Supreme Court’s decision sets a precedent for fair and just compensation, reinforcing the need for courts to adopt a pragmatic and humanitarian approach in assessing damages.
Petitioner Name: Baby Sakshi Greola.Respondent Name: Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Another.Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan.Place Of Incident: New Delhi.Judgment Date: 10-12-2024.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: baby-sakshi-greola-vs-manzoor-ahmad-simon-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-10-12-2024.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Compensation Disputes
See all petitions in Motor Vehicle Act
See all petitions in Negligence Claims
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by K.V. Viswanathan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments
See all posts in Accident Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
