Accident claim – 100% disability – for reducing the claim, high court has to assign the reasons – in the absence of reasons, order not maintainable – Tribunal fixed income at Rs.5000 per month as a senior electrician – claimed Rs.26 lakhs, tribunal awarded Rs. 14 lakhs and odd , High court with out assigning reason reduced it for Rs. 9 lakhs and odd – Apex court set aside the order of high court and confirmed the award of Tribunal =
The appellant was a victim of road accident on 27th July, 1997. On
account of several serious injuries including amputation of complete left
hand, severe injuries in head, dislocation of bones in hip and both knees
and severe injuries in foot, the Doctor assessed his disability at 100%.
3. The appellant preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal at Chennai and sought compensation of Rs.26,00,000/-
(rupees twenty six lacs). The Claims Tribunal allowed a claim for
Rs.14,20,000/- (rupees fourteen lacs and twenty thousand only) vide
judgment dated 9.8.2000 rendered in M.C.O.P. No. 3365 of 1997. The claim
allowed on different heads includes:
i) Loss of income for one year as Rs.60,000/-;
ii) Special diet and transportation-Rs.50,000/-
iii) Medical expenses –Rs.50,000/-
iv) Pain and suffering – Rs.2,00,000/-
v) Permanent disability – Rs.4,00,000/-
vi) Loss of future earning – Rs.6,60,000/-
4. The Insurance Company preferred appeal before the High Court at
Madras and by the order under appeal dated 13.11.2006 passed in C.M.A. Nos.
1963 of 2000 and 12 of 2001 the High Court, while maintaining the Award
under the first three heads, reduced the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for pain
and suffering to Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/- for permanent disability to
Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.6,60,000/- as loss of future earning to Rs.3,96,000/-.
As a result of aforesaid reduction, the appellant has been held entitled
only to Rs.9,56,000/- (rupees nine lacs and fifty six thousand only) in
place of Rs.14,20,000/- (rupees fourteen lacs and twenty thousands only).
Assailing the order under appeal on account of reduction of compensation
under the three heads noted above, learned counsel for the appellant has
taken us through the materials on record including the judgment of the
Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court under appeal.
5. It has been shown that the Tribunal has discussed all the available
materials in detail for coming to a cogent and well reasoned finding for
calculating the loss of future earning on the basis of monthly income of
Rs.5,000/- whereas the High Court reduced the monthly income to Rs.3,000/-
without specifying any reasons for reversing the finding of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal considered oral evidence of the claimant as well as documents
such as Ext. P.4 and Ext. P.5 showing that the applicant had experience of
working as Electrician and was employed as such. In the light of all the
relevant materials the Tribunal assessed the earning capacity of the
appellant as Rs.5,000/- p.m. and accordingly allowed a sum of Rs.60,000/-
as loss of earning capacity for a period of one year and by adopting the
multiplier of 11 allowed Rs.6,60,000/- as loss of future earning.
6. The High Court did not interfere with the multiplier and as indicated
above, without good reasons treated the monthly income of the appellant to
be Rs.3,000/- in place of Rs.5,000/-. Inexplicably the High court has
retained loss of income for one year to be Rs.60,000/- which is possible
only if the monthly income is accepted to be Rs.5,000/-. There is no
reason assigned even for reducing the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for
pain and suffering to Rs.1,00,000/- and of Rs.4,00,000/- for permanent
disability to Rs.3,00,000/-.
7. Considering that the appellant had suffered 100% disability, in our
view, the learned Tribunal was quite justified in allowing Rs.14,20,000/-
as total compensation on the basis of monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. The
judgment of the High Court under appeal is therefore set aside and the
judgment and order of the Tribunal is restored. The dues payable to the
appellant on account of this order should be deposited by the respondent-
Insurance Company with the Tribunal within eight weeks along with interest
on such amount at the rate of 9% to be paid from the date of petition i.e.
27.08.1997. The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount
without any condition.
8. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
2014 ( January – Vol – 1)judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41165
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5601-5602 OF 2007
M.D. JACOB … APPELLANT
VS.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
LTD. & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company.
2. The appellant was a victim of road accident on 27th July, 1997. On
account of several serious injuries including amputation of complete left
hand, severe injuries in head, dislocation of bones in hip and both knees
and severe injuries in foot, the Doctor assessed his disability at 100%.
3. The appellant preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal at Chennai and sought compensation of Rs.26,00,000/-
(rupees twenty six lacs). The Claims Tribunal allowed a claim for
Rs.14,20,000/- (rupees fourteen lacs and twenty thousand only) vide
judgment dated 9.8.2000 rendered in M.C.O.P. No. 3365 of 1997. The claim
allowed on different heads includes:
i) Loss of income for one year as Rs.60,000/-;
ii) Special diet and transportation-Rs.50,000/-
iii) Medical expenses –Rs.50,000/-
iv) Pain and suffering – Rs.2,00,000/-
v) Permanent disability – Rs.4,00,000/-
vi) Loss of future earning – Rs.6,60,000/-
4. The Insurance Company preferred appeal before the High Court at
Madras and by the order under appeal dated 13.11.2006 passed in C.M.A. Nos.
1963 of 2000 and 12 of 2001 the High Court, while maintaining the Award
under the first three heads, reduced the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for pain
and suffering to Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/- for permanent disability to
Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.6,60,000/- as loss of future earning to Rs.3,96,000/-.
As a result of aforesaid reduction, the appellant has been held entitled
only to Rs.9,56,000/- (rupees nine lacs and fifty six thousand only) in
place of Rs.14,20,000/- (rupees fourteen lacs and twenty thousands only).
Assailing the order under appeal on account of reduction of compensation
under the three heads noted above, learned counsel for the appellant has
taken us through the materials on record including the judgment of the
Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court under appeal.
5. It has been shown that the Tribunal has discussed all the available
materials in detail for coming to a cogent and well reasoned finding for
calculating the loss of future earning on the basis of monthly income of
Rs.5,000/- whereas the High Court reduced the monthly income to Rs.3,000/-
without specifying any reasons for reversing the finding of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal considered oral evidence of the claimant as well as documents
such as Ext. P.4 and Ext. P.5 showing that the applicant had experience of
working as Electrician and was employed as such. In the light of all the
relevant materials the Tribunal assessed the earning capacity of the
appellant as Rs.5,000/- p.m. and accordingly allowed a sum of Rs.60,000/-
as loss of earning capacity for a period of one year and by adopting the
multiplier of 11 allowed Rs.6,60,000/- as loss of future earning.
6. The High Court did not interfere with the multiplier and as indicated
above, without good reasons treated the monthly income of the appellant to
be Rs.3,000/- in place of Rs.5,000/-. Inexplicably the High court has
retained loss of income for one year to be Rs.60,000/- which is possible
only if the monthly income is accepted to be Rs.5,000/-. There is no
reason assigned even for reducing the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for
pain and suffering to Rs.1,00,000/- and of Rs.4,00,000/- for permanent
disability to Rs.3,00,000/-.
7. Considering that the appellant had suffered 100% disability, in our
view, the learned Tribunal was quite justified in allowing Rs.14,20,000/-
as total compensation on the basis of monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. The
judgment of the High Court under appeal is therefore set aside and the
judgment and order of the Tribunal is restored. The dues payable to the
appellant on account of this order should be deposited by the respondent-
Insurance Company with the Tribunal within eight weeks along with interest
on such amount at the rate of 9% to be paid from the date of petition i.e.
27.08.1997. The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount
without any condition.
8. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
……………………………………………C.J.I.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
……………………………………………………J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
……………………………………………………J.
(SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)
New Delhi,
January 21, 2014.
———————–
6
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.