Relief to paraplegic havildar, wife hiked to Rs 73.82 lakh

When the injured soldier offered protection and thereby, respect to Mother India, as one of its sincere children, it is imperative that the law of the land respects him, observed the Madras High Court on Tuesday. With this observation, the court hiked the compensation awarded to a havildar, who was rendered a paraplegic after a road accident, from Rs 4.57 lakh to Rs 73.82 lakh. 

A division bench of justices S Vimala and S Ramalingam, said, “The case on hand is a classic example where the case not only evokes judicial sympathy, but also compassion. This court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the necessity of the spouse to act as attendant over and above her normal duties as caretaker of the household and the loss that she would be suffering on account of the total invalidation of the claimant at the young age of 34, deems it fit and proper that both the claimant as well as the spouse needs to be compensated.” 

According to the case, Mohan Kumar who was serving as havildar was rendered a paraplegic (vegetative state), when the vehicle in which he was travelling hit a tree at Tiruppattur on November 11, 2007. He was 34 at the time of the accident. His family includes his wife D Mythili and son Abishek, besides his father and mother. 

Subsequently, he was invalidated from service on September 25, 2010, under Rule 13 of the Army Rules. While the Military Hospital certified the disablement as 100 per cent, a hospital at Krishnagiri had certified the disablement at 90 per cent. Based on oral and documentary evidence, a tribunal had quantified the compensation at Rs.4.57 lakh.

However, the bench, while allowing the appeal and enhancing the compensation had also suo motu impleaded the claimant’s wife in the case and provided her with compensation after holding, “It is the primal duty of this court to compensate the spouse for the utmost hardship that she would have to endure for the rest of her life in not only taking care of the claimant, but also putting aside all her pleasures and joy for which the spouse needs to be compensated adequately for the loss she is due to suffer.” 

Also, observing that the fundamental mistake committed by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal had resulted in the grossly inadequate award, the bench held, “It is further evident from the award that the circumstances in which the multiplier method is to be adopted has not been understood by few Judicial Officers. It is high time that necessary training is imparted to the Judicial Officers, so that the litigant public is not put to undue stress and delay and they must be able to reap the benefit of the benevolent legislation in time.” 

The bench then directed the Registry to mark a copy of the order to the Director, Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, Chennai, for necessary action.