CASE SUMMARY: BABY SAKSHI GREOLA VS. MANZOOR AHMAD SIMON

Case Details

Introduction

The case apprehensions the purpose of just and realistic compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a child who agonized shattering and permanent brain injuries in a road accident. The Court highlighted that reimbursement in cases involving enduringly disabled children must be genuine, humane and enough to protect lifetime care.

Facts of The Case

1. The case of Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon serves a bitter example of the plight of judiciary to assure justice for the minors who bear painful injuries for any accident. 
2. The accident happened on 2nd June, 2009 in New Delhi, had created both physical and mental illness for the appellant (Baby Sakshi Greola), who is a seven years old child.
3. On 2nd June, 2009, the appellant (Baby Sakshi Greola) was passing by a road with her mother on a zebra crossing at noon 1:00 PM. Suddenly a car rushed at a high pace, and hit the appellant. This was the primary cause, for which the appellant had suffered from various painful injuries.
4. So, the appellant’s father on behalf of the appellant, Baby Sakshi Greola filed a petition to get compensation Under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent before the Learned Tribunal.
5. So, the Learned Tribunal held that the appellant, Baby Sakshi Greola will get the compensation of 5,90,750/- and also is entitled to get 7.5% interest per annum from the petition filing date.
6. But the appellant again filed a petition before Delhi High Court. And The Honourable Delhi High Court increased the amount of compensation from 5,90,750/- to 11,51,000/- which the appellant will receive and also increased the rate of interest from 7.5 percentage per year to 9 percentage per year from the date of the filing of the suit.
7. But the appellant’s father on behalf of the appellant Baby Sakshi Greola again filed a petition before The Honourable Supreme Court and challenge the amount of compensation held by The Honourable Delhi High Court. 
8. Smt. Aruna Mehta was the legal representative for the appellant Baby Sakshi Greola. And she submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court that the doctor named Monica Juneja who checked the appellant had declared that the appellant has suffered 75% mental barrage and also declared that she is unable to control over her urine area and it is not recoverable. Counsel Aruna Mehta argued before The Honourable Supreme Court that these types of children with mental illness can grow only up to the 2nd standard class, can’t go beyond that and also told that she will grow up as an adult but will act as a child. And she can’t be admitted in a regular school; she has to be admitted in a special school for education and she can’t look after by herself for daily works. The counsel for the appellant also said before the Court that The Delhi High Court was unsuccessful to verdict the correct amount for the treatment and pains of the appellant.
9. But the counsel appearing for the respondent, Shri Ravi Bakshi said before The Honourable Supreme Court that the High Court had awarded the correct compensation to the appellant, even The Honourable Delhi Court had increased the amount of compensation held by the Tribunal.

Issues of The Case

1. Whether the appellant had suffered from tormenting injuries in that road accident for careless driving of the car by the respondent.
2. Whether the appellant is designated to get any compensation from the respondent.
3. Whether the compensation bestowed by the High Court was suitable reflecting the appellant’s permanent disability and lifetime dependency.
4. Whether future consequent charges should be considered on the basis of permanent care rather than momentary assistance.

Arguments of The Appellant

The appellant claimed that….

1. The High Court undervalued the brutality of the appellant’s debility. Because she is mentally disabled throughout her entire life and would incapable of living independently. So, she needed a full-time attendant for the rest of her entire life.
2. The High Court erroneously considered the attendant charges. And also, the compensation for pain, suffering and future treatment declared by the High Court was insufficient.

Arguments for The Respondent

The respondent argued that….

1. The Delhi High Court had already considerably improved the compensation and also the award was fair and realistic.
2. The disability certificate showed that there was some possibility of enhancement in appellant’s condition. Therefore, there was no reasoning for conceding significantly higher compensation.

Judgement

The Honourable Supreme Court constructed that the indemnification which is awarded by The Delhi High Court was not correct based on the appellant’s grievous impairments and not progressive situation. So, the Honourable Supreme Court increased the amount of compensation to help to bring any improve in the appellant’s life and also held some rules which are following….

1. The Honourable Apex Court had increased the compensation for pain and suffering, and for the improvement of the appellant Baby Sakshi Greola from 1,00,000/- to 15,00,000/-.
2. And also, The Honourable Supreme Court had increased the charge of compensation for loss of marriage expectation of the appellant Baby Sakshi Greola from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 5,00,000.
3. The High Court of Delhi announced a least number of charges for inefficient worker to look after the appellant. But The Honourable Supreme Court discarded that announcement by the Delhi High Court and held that there was a need of an efficient and capable full-time attendee for looking after of the appellant Baby Sakshi Greola. And The Honourable Supreme Court also increased the amount of compensation for an attendee declared by The Delhi High Court from Rs. 4,25,000/- to 9,42,000/-.
4. The Honourable Supreme Court confirmed the principle of the multiplier process for counting the damages and compensation of after days which considers that a multiplier of 18 was absolutely correct given the age of the appellant and situations.
5. Besides the charges of compensation for pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospect and a full-time official attendee, The Honourable Supreme Court increased the charges of other things also like for the losses of earning capacity for incapability from Rs. 1,68,750/-to Rs. 13,18,000/-, for future treatment from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-etc.
6. So, the amount of compensation was increased by The Honourable Supreme Court from Rs. 11,51,000/- announced by Delhi High Court to Rs. 50,87,000/- and along with this also held that the interest of 9% per annum must be payable by the respondent.
7. So, The Honourable Supreme Court approved the appeal and held that the appellant Baby Sakshi Greola will be entitled by a compensation amount of Rs. 50,87,000/- by the respondent.

Critical Analysis of Judgement

The judgement of the case has created a great critical impact on other cases. The primary impacts of the judgement of this case are following….

• Comprehensive amount of impairment: The Courts should give an attention to the real situation of the life of the sufferer who is grievously injured by an accident besides looking in the percentage of disabilities mentioned in the medical certificate declared by the doctor.
• Exercise of least wages in counting of the compensation: A minor injured in the accident, had lost her mental balance, her walking ability, her earning capacity etc. So, she needs a full-time efficient and capable attendee. So, The Court should award the attendee a least number of compensations for looking after the victim.

Obiter Dicta

The Honourable Supreme Court’s decision in this case is used in different cases where the minors have been suffering from various grievous injuries for motor accidents. The Honourable Supreme Court of India indicated some key points in this case which are following….

1. If a minor has suffered 75% disability in her body in an accident it should be seen as 100% disability declared by the Court because she has lost to live an independent life.
2. There should be a full-time efficient attendee for looking after the victims in these types of cases.
3. The amount of compensation should be suitable for the future medical and other expenses of the victim.
4. Compensation in motor accident cases involving children should not be assessed mechanically.

Conclusion

So, the judgement by The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon is an important reference in an actual situation of a victim’s life who suffered from dangerous accident. The decision of The Supreme Court of India in this case determines the role of the judiciary to interpret laws for serving equity, justice and conscience in the society.

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org
2. https://www.casemine.com