Motor Vehicles – Disability sustained as a result of motor accident – Appellant-victim, a loadman engaged by a building contractor, was 26 years old at the time of the accident – Tribunal determined the disability at 70%, and granted compensation of Rs 11,27,359/- with interest @ 12% per annum – High Court reduced the interest awarded by the Tribunal to 7.5% per annum while maintaining the award of compensation – On appeal, held: Injuries sustained by appellant are serious – As a result of multiple fractures sustained by him, appellant has lost complete sensation below the abdomen – Evidently he cannot work anymore as loadman – In the circumstances, assessment of disability at 70% is incorrect – On a realistic view of the matter, the nature of the disability must be regarded as being complete – Compensation granted by Tribunal accordingly enhanced by Rs 3,00,000/- — Appellant entitled to interest @ 9 % per annum, on total amount of compensation (instead and in substitution of 7.5% per annum awarded by the High Court). The appellant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident. The Tribunal computed the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the loss of income occasioned by the disability at Rs 9,72,000/-. However, on the basis of the opinion of the doctor that the disability was to the extent of 70%, the net amount was determined at Rs 6,80,400/-. After taking into account the medical and other expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs 11,27,359/- together with interest of 12% per annum. The High Court maintained the award of compensation but reduced the interest component from 12% per annum to 7.5% per annum. In appeal to this Court, the appellant pleaded that the High Court has not assessed the compensation in a correct manner.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The submission of the insurer that there was a concession on the part of the appellant before the High Court which must bind him, cannot be accepted. The statement made by counsel for the appellant before the High Court was on whether the Tribunal had granted just and reasonable compensation. Whether in fact the compensation which has been granted is just and reasonable cannot hence be construed as a matter of concession and it would not preclude the appellant from raising a contest in these proceedings. [Para 7] [15-D-E]
2. On perusing the record it is evident that the injuries sustained by the appellant are indeed of a serious nature. As a result of the multiple fractures sustained by him, the appellant has lost complete sensation below the abdomen. Evidently he cannot work anymore as loadman. In these circumstances, the assessment of disability at 70 per cent is incorrect. On a realistic view of the matter, the nature of the disability must be regarded as being complete. In the circumstances, there is no reason or justification for the deduction of an amount of Rs.2,91,600/- by the Tribunal (Rs. 9,72,000/- minus Rs 6,80,400/-). The amount so deducted must be restored and is rounded off to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Moreover, the appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition. [Para 8] [15-F-H]
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.