Mumbai: Observing that an engineering student’s resilience in completing her degree “in no way” compensated for the loss of her right upper limb, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed a bus owner and National Insurance Co Ltd to jointly and severally pay Snehal Zanjurne almost Rs 3 crore, inclusive of interest, in compensation.Member Gauri Kawdikar allowed Zanjurne’s claim, holding that she suffered permanent disability in a 2019 accident involving a private bus, and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. Rejecting the insurer’s contention that there was no loss of earning capacity because Zanjurne completed her BTech in first class and was preparing for the MPSC examination, the tribunal said, “Though the claimant has shown resilience and completed her B Tech with First Class showing good amount of will power, determination, dedication; the personal qualities of the claimant in no way can be said to compensate for the loss of right upper limb.”In addition to other heads, final compensation also included Rs five lakh for loss of marriage prospects and Rs two lakh for disfigurement. “Amputation in itself undoubtedly leaves scar not only on the physical body but also very negative psychological, emotional and mental impact. Loss of right upper limb would undoubtedly cause hardship to the claimant, would lower her physical capacity and also affect her self esteem, societal appearance. Said loss is only because of the accidental injuries and she has to be duly compensated for the same,” the tribunal said.The tribunal held that the owner was vicariously liable and that the insurer must indemnify the owner under the insurance policy.According to the claim submitted in 2020, on June 18, 2019, Zanjurne (then 20) was travelling from Satara to Surat around 1.45 am when the bus, allegedly being driven at high and excessive speed on Western Express Highway, turned turtle after the driver lost control. She was treated at Bhagwati Hospital, Borivli; Bhosale Hospital, Satara; and Z Plus Accident Hospital, Hadapsar. An FIR was registered at Mamta Nagar police station for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act.The owner, Omprakash Sadwani, was proceeded against ex parte on June 27, 2023. National Insurance, the insurer, contested the claim, arguing that the bus driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle lacked a valid permit, amounting to a breach of policy conditions. It also disputed Zanjurne’s age, occupation, income and entitlement to compensation.The tribunal rejected the insurer’s objections, noting that it had not examined any RTO officer to establish absence of a valid driving licence. On the permit objection, the court relied on vehicle particulars showing that the bus had a valid permit from May 13, 2019, to May 12, 2024. “The insurer…has failed to prove that the respondent No 1…owner committed breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy,” the tribunal held.On negligence, the insurer pointed to the absence of a bus ticket and the claimant’s admission that she had not gone to the police station to give her statement. The tribunal, however, held that her testimony was corroborated by the FIR, case diary and spot panchanama. “There is no reason for the police to falsely implicate the driver,” the tribunal said, holding that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving.The tribunal accepted the medical evidence of permanent disability, relying on testimony from doctors Rahul Zanjurne and Ajit Bhosale and disability certificates issued by civil surgeons at Surat and Satara, each recording 65% disability. The court noted that the insurer had not successfully challenged the disability certificates or the assessment of disability.The tribunal assessed her notional income as a fresh Electronics and Communication engineering graduate at Rs 25,000 per month, fixed functional disability at 60%, applied a multiplier of 18 and added 40% future prospects. It also awarded compensation under heads including pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects, disfigurement, medical bills, special diet, conveyance and future prosthesis expenses with maintenance.On prosthesis, the tribunal relied on evidence from a patient care counsellor at Ottobock, Chembur, who proved a quotation for an artificial limb, and assessed the claimant’s future requirement on the basis that the prosthesis would need replacement every five years. Taking her age and life expectancy into account, the court awarded future prosthesis expenses for nine replacements.
