The Bombay High Court has upheld an award of ₹62 lakh granted to the family of Charu Khandal, a young animator with Shah Rukh Khan’s production house, Red Chillies Entertainment.
Khandal suffered severe injuries in a hit-and-run incident in 2012 and died in 2017 after years of paralysis.
“Fair Compensation Ought to Be the Norm,” the court stated.
A bench comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna dismissed the appeal filed by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd, which had challenged the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in November 2020.
Quoting from its order, the court stated, “Perfect compensation is hardly possible, but fair compensation ought to be the norm.”
The judges emphasized that the Motor Vehicles Act is intended to protect victims and provide meaningful relief. They stressed the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to live with dignity, including after life-altering injuries.
A Promising Life Cut Short
Charu Khandal was only 28 when she met with a tragic accident in suburban Oshiwara. A speeding car collided with the autorickshaw she was travelling in, leaving her paralyzed from the neck down due to spinal cord injuries. At the time, she and her team were celebrating their award-winning work on the film Ra.One.
Khandal lived with traumatic quadriplegia for five years, relying on full-time medical support. She eventually passed away in 2017 due to septicaemia, which the court confirmed was a direct consequence of her paralysis.
Insurance Firm’s Objections Rejected
In its appeal, the insurance company argued that there was no direct link between the accident and Khandal’s death, pointing out that she died several years later. The High Court, however, found this argument unconvincing and held that her death was clearly related to complications from the accident.
The court noted that Khandal’s family had already spent ₹18 lakh on medical expenses. It supported the tribunal’s view that she required constant medical attention, physiotherapy, and an attendant during those 5 years.
The bench criticized the insurance company’s attempt to avoid liability on technical grounds, saying:
“It would be extremely harsh, excessive and rather too pedantic an approach… if we are to assess every single medical bill with mathematical accuracy, which is not what the law would mandate.”
It further remarked that denying rightful compensation by hiding behind narrow legal interpretations would defeat the purpose of insurance coverage and justice.
This verdict reinforces the principle that while monetary compensation can never truly replace a lost life, the legal system must ensure that victims and their families receive fair, humane, and timely redress.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
