Motor Vehicles Act 1988: s.166 – Permanent Disability – Appellant-claimant, was a Navy merchant and earning USD 1000 – He sustained multiple injuries in a vehicular accident, due to which there was an amputation of the right upper limb below elbow and he had to undergo five operations during his prolonged hospitalization — Claim for compensation of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- under different heads made before MACT – The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,68,000/- only – Appeal for enhancement of compensation – High Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 14,82,000 observing that though claimant’s right hand below elbow was amputated resulting in 70 % disability qua right arm, he could still earn something and that the Merchant Navy is usually a job for six months in a year – Hence instant appeal – Held: High Court observed that the claimant can still earn something – However, the claimant will not be able to do any work in Merchant Navy – High Court also observed that in Merchant Navy, usually the job is for six months in a year – The said observation is absolutely without any basis – No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents on that – It cannot be said that the claimant would do nothing for rest of six months – High Court has also not considered the future rise in income – Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have awarded the future economic loss considering the loss of income at least at Rs. 30,000/- per month – High Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/only towards pain, shock, and suffering – However, the right hand below elbow of the claimant was amputated – During prolonged hospitalization, he was operated five times – Considering the five operations, prolonged hospitalization, and suffering, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the High Court under the head of pain, shock, and suffering can be said to be on a lower side – In the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs. 4,00,000/- granted towards pain, shock, and suffering.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court while awarding the future economic loss has considered the loss of income at Rs. 18,000/- per month. However, the appellant was serving as Merchant Navy and his salary at the relevant time was USD 1000. His right hand below elbow was amputated resulting in 70% disability qua right arm. The High Court has observed that the claimant can still earn something. However, the claimant will not be able to do any work in Merchant Navy. The High Court also observed that in Merchant Navy, usually the job is for six months in a year. The said observation is absolutely without any basis. No evidence is led on behalf of the respondents on the aforesaid. It cannot be said that the claimant would do nothing for rest of six months. The High Court has also not considered the future rise in income. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have awarded the future economic loss considering the loss of income at least at Rs. 30,000/- per month. Therefore, the total loss comes to Rs. 57,60,000/- (30000x12x16). [Para 5] [113-D-F]
2. The High Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/- only towards pain, shock, and suffering. However, it is required to be noted that the right hand below elbow of the claimant was amputated. During prolonged hospitalization, he was operated five times. Looking to the serious injuries, the claimant was required to be shifted to Medical College and Hospital at Rohtak and thereafter to Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi, where he was remained admitted from 03.01.1997 to 21.01.1997. Therefore, considering the five operations, prolonged hospitalization, and suffering, we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the High Court under the head of pain, shock, and suffering can be said to be on a lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, the claimant shall be entitled to at least Rs. 4,00,000/- towards pain, shock, and suffering. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is to be modified accordingly. [Para 5.1][113-G-H; 114-A-B]
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.