Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Accident Claim – Original appellant (who died during pendency of this appeal) met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries – Medical board certified sufferings from physical disabilities at 61.94% – Appellant filed Motor Accident Claim – The MACT awarded an amount to the original appellant taking disability at 61.94% as assessed by the Medical Board – The High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to reconsider – MACT appointed a Commissioner who testified disability at 77.72% – The MACT held that it would be just and proper to take the disability at 50% to meet the ends of justice – The MACT, after reconsideration, awarded a total amount of Rs.31,64,896/- – High Court reduced the compensation award by deducting pension amount from salary and reducing the rate of interest – Assessed disability at 61.94% – No amount awarded for loss of future prospects – The High Court computed the compensation amount of Rs.27,47,63.25/- – Correctness:
Held: It is well settled that the amount of compensation is to be calculated on the basis of last drawn salary of the injured/deceased in respect of salaried persons and pension and such retirement benefits enjoyed cannot be deducted for computing the income, these being statutory rights receivable by the employee or his legal heirs irrespective of any unforeseen incident of accidents, fatal injuries etc. and such pensionary benefit is not directly relatable to the motor accident – Hence, pensionary benefit could not have been treated as “pecuniary advantage” liable to be deducted for the purpose of computation of compensation within the scope of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – As far as future prospects is concerned, in view of the dictum in Pranay Sethi, the original appellant would be entitled to an addition of 30% of the income towards loss of future prospects as the original appellant was 43 years when he met with the accident – Coming to the issue of disability, it may be apposite to recollect that while the Medical Board had assessed the disability at 61.94%, the Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal had assessed it to be 77.72% which was rounded off to 78% – The Tribunal could not have doubted the correctness of the assessment made by the Commissioner and could have accepted the same, yet for a strange reason that there was no material evidence to show that the original appellant was rendered completely incapacitated or that he was doing any job after his discharge from the services, the Tribunal reduced the disability to 50% holding that it would meet the ends of justice – There is no reason as to why the Tribunal did not accept the same to the effect that the disability was 78% – Similarly, no reason has been assigned by the High Court why it chose to accept the assessment of 61.94% – It may be also noted that the subsequent assessment was made during the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal and the concerned Doctor/Commissioner who had treated the original appellant made the assessment and had testified before the Tribunal and cross examined by the Insurance Company and his evidence had remained unshaken – Under the circumstances, it would be just and proper to accept 78% disability – The appropriate multiplier would be 14 as had been applied by the Tribunal and the High Court – This Court is of the view that the compensation awarded to the original appellant should be enhanced – Accordingly, the an amount of Rs. 67,36,084/- is to be released in the favour of the appellants at the rate of interest of 7% simple interest p.a. [Paras 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.