Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 – Compensation – Computation of – Rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle – Claimant met with an accident sustaining disability – Evidence of the doctor that the disability to the extent of 55 % – Award of Rs. 22,85,322/- as compensation by the tribunal, however, High Court reduced the amount to Rs. 12,00,000/- – On appeal, held: While calculating the income, the tribunal committed an error of computation – Claim for compensation on the basis that the disability was permanent not established – Annual loss of income comes to Rs. 79,877/- – Disability being of a temporary nature, compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs is awarded towards loss of income, Rs. 2 lakhs towards trauma, pain and suffering, and Rs. 2,09,622/- towards medical expenses – Thus, Rs. 9,10,000/- awarded with interest @ 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the filing of the petition. Claimant sustained disability as a result of a motor accident. Tribunal awarded Rs. 22,85,322/- as compensation. AppellantInsurer filed an appeal challenging the compensation amount. The High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 12,00,000/and interest from 7.5 per cent per annum to 7.0 per cent per annum. Hence, the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On perusing the order of the tribunal, there is merit in the submission of the insurer that while calculating the income, the tribunal committed an error of computation. The tribunal on the basis of the income tax returns for 2007, 2008 and 2009 arrived at an average income of Rs. 1,45,231/-. However, the tribunal thereafter noted that the average income comes to Rs. 2,62,372/-. Ultimately, the tribunal proceeded on the annual income of Rs. 2,22,000/- on the basis of the testimony of the claimant that he was earning Rs. 18,500/- per month. This is contradictory. On the basis of the finding of the tribunal that the average income of the claimant for the previous three years was Rs. 1,45,231/-, it would be necessary to take into account the evidence of PW2-doctor that the disability is to the extent of 55 per cent. In other words, the loss of earning as a result of the said disability would work out to Rs. 79,877/- per year. [Para 7] [47-C-E]
1.2 In the instant case, the doctor admitted to having made an interpolation in the disability certificate. The evidence indicates that the disability is temporary and not permanent. The doctor admitted that the disability certificate indicated a tick mark on the word ‘permanent’ by mistake. He further stated that the disability in the instant case was likely to improve. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, the claim for compensation on the basis that the disability was permanent was clearly not established. [Para 11, 12] [50-B-D]
1.3 There was no basis to award an amount of
Rs.20,75,700/-. The tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 2,09,622/- towards medical expenses. The figure of an annual loss of income of Rs. 79,877/- is accepted. The disability being of a temporary nature, compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs is awarded towards loss of income. Compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs is awarded towards trauma, pain and suffering. In addition, the claimant is entitled to medical expenses of Rs. 2,09,622/-. The ends of justice would be met by directing a payment of Rs. 9,10,000/- . The claimant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. [Para 13] [50-F]
Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (2011) 12 SCALE
658 ; Govind Yadav v New India Insurance Company Limited (2011) 10 SCC 683 ; R.D. Hattangadi v Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1951) 1 SCC 551 ; Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S. Dhananka [2009] 9 SCR 313 : (2009) 6 SCC 1 ; Reshma Kumari v Madam Mohan [2009] 11 SCR 305 : (2009) 13 SCC
422 ; Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Co. Ltd .[2010] 11 SCR 857 : (2010) 10 SCC 254 ; Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar [2010] 13 SCR 179 : (2011) 1 SCC 343 ; Subulaxmi v MD Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation [2012] 9 SCR 962 : (2012) 10 SCC 177 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.