//
you're reading...
legal issues

Accident claim- M.V.Act – Leg amputated – Engineer – unmarried – aged 24 years – now working as Desk job – does not bar him from getting financial loss at salary x 17 times multiplication Rs.15,72,000/-. – Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court that the appellant has not suffered any financial loss because of permanent disability having regard to the fact that subsequently he took up employment in Industrial Development Bank of India as Grade-B Officer, cannot be sustained. Once the permanent disability is fixed, taking into consideration, its impact on the employment/profession of the claimant, the compensation has to be awarded. = DINESH SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL … RESPONDENTS INSURANCE CO LTD.= 2014 ( April.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41454

Accident claim- M.V.Act – Leg amputated – Engineer – unmarried – aged 24 years – now working as Desk job – does not bar him from getting financial loss at salary x  17 times multiplication Rs.15,72,000/-. –  Therefore, the reasoning of the  High  Court  that  the  appellant  has  not suffered any financial loss because of permanent  disability  having  regard to  the  fact  that  subsequently  he  took  up  employment  in   Industrial Development Bank of India as Grade-B Officer,  cannot  be  sustained.   Once the permanent disability is fixed, taking into consideration, its impact  on the employment/profession of  the  claimant,  the  compensation  has  to  be awarded. =

 According to him, due to amputation of his left leg, he suffered  100%

permanent disability.  At the time  of  accident,  he  was  getting  monthly

salary of Rs.17,200/-.as an Engineer.  Because of the disability, he had  to

resign his job as  an  Engineer  and  take  up  a  desk  job  in  Industrial

Development Bank of India.  Being a  bachelor,  he  has  lost  prospects  of

getting married.  He thus  laid  the  claim  for  a  total  compensation  of

Rs.40,75,000/- under different heads for the injuries sustained by him.=    

 

11.   The appellant, admittedly, was in hospital as an inpatient for a  long

time.  He was operated upon for two times, and presently he is able to  move

with the assistance of  an  artificial  limb,  and  he  still  has  to  take

treatment, as is evident from the evidence of the  Doctor,  and  considering

the fact that loss of limb causes lot of pain to any living  being,  we  are

of the considered opinion that compensation payable to the  appellant  under

the head ‘pain and agony’, should be reasonable.  The Tribunal  has  awarded

Rs. 70,000/-, and we feel it appropriate to enhance by another  Rs.50,000/-,

and upon such enhancement, the appellant would be entitled to  Rs.1,20,000/-

under the head ‘pain and agony’.  Therefore, we hold  that  the  High  Court

erred in reducing the compensation payable to the appellant under  the  head

“pain and agony’.

 

12.   The compensation payable to the appellant under  the  heads  ‘loss  of

amenities’ and ‘loss of  marriage  prospects’,  also  requires  enhancement.

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,50,000/- under the head ‘loss  of  amenities’.

We feel it appropriate to enhance the same by another  Rs.1,00,000/-.   Upon

such enhancement, the appellant would be  entitled  to  Rs.3,50,000/-  under

the head ‘loss of amenities of life.

 

13.   The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of marriage  prospects’

.   We feel it appropriate to enhance the same by another  Rs.50,000/-,  and

on such enhancement, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-  under

the head ‘ loss of marriage prospects.

 

14.    The  Tribunal  has  awarded  Rs.5,00,000/-  towards  future   medical

expenses.  Considering the fact that the appellant still requires  treatment

and has to change his artificial limb as and when required, we  are  of  the

considered  opinion  that  the  compensation  under  the  said  head   needs

enhancement, and accordingly, we enhance the same  by  another  Rs.50,000/-.

The appellant therefore, would be entitled to Rs.5,50,000/-.

 

15.   In view of the evidence produced by the appellant that  he  has  spent

about Rs.3,10,000/- towards medical expenditure,  including  conveyance  and

attendance fee, for the period  he  was  under  treatment,  we  are  of  the

opinion that the same needs to be granted, and  accordingly,  we  grant  the

same as awarded by the Tribunal, and find  fault  with  the  High  Court  in

reducing the same.

 

16.   Thus, in all, we hold that the appellant is entitled  to  compensation

of Rs. 33,10,160/- as under:

|1.    |Pain and Agony                         |Rs.1,20,000/-          |

|2.    |Medical expenditure, including         |Rs.3,10,000/-          |

|      |conveyance, attendant fee etc (During  |                       |

|      |the period of treatment                |                       |

|3.    |                                       |Rs.3,08,160/-          |

|      |Loss of income during                  |                       |

|      |hospitalization/treatment              |                       |

|      |Loss of future income                  |Rs.15,72,000/-         |

|4.    |                                       |                       |

|      |Loss of happiness and loss of amenities|Rs.3,50,000/-          |

|5.    |                                       |                       |

|6.    |Loss of marriage prospects             |Rs.1,00,000/-          |

|7.    |Future medical expenses                |Rs.5,50,000/-          |

|IN TOTAL                                     |                       |

|                                             |                       |

|                                             |Rs. 33,10,160/-        |

 

17.   The above compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from  the

date of filing of  the  petition  before  the  Tribunal  till  the  date  of

payment,

 

18.   Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the  High  Court  and  allow

the appeals in the above terms with no order as to costs.

 2014 ( April.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41454
P SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA

NON – REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8215 – 8216 OF 2009
DINESH SINGH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL … RESPONDENTS
INSURANCE CO LTD.
JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J.

 

These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgment
passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in M.F.A.
No. 4502 of 2007 C/W. M.F.A. No. 3293 of 2007.

2. The appellant is the claimant. He filed claim petition being M.V.C.
No. 515 of 2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hubli, stating
that he is B.E. Degree holder in Metallurgy. He is aged 24 years and was
working as Quality Engineer in Hospet Steels Ltd. On 13.04.2004 while he
was returning to his home from the company he met with an accident. In the
accident, he sustained grievous and fracture injuries to the knee and also
left hand. He was taken to a hospital in Hubli for treatment, where his
left leg was amputated. He was in the said hospital as an inpatient till
June, 2004. Thereafter, he took treatment at Tulasidas Gopalji Charitable
and Dhakleswar Temple Trust and All India Institute of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation, Bombay and he is still under treatment and presently
walking with the assistance of an artificial limb.
3. According to him, due to amputation of his left leg, he suffered 100%
permanent disability. At the time of accident, he was getting monthly
salary of Rs.17,200/-.as an Engineer. Because of the disability, he had to
resign his job as an Engineer and take up a desk job in Industrial
Development Bank of India. Being a bachelor, he has lost prospects of
getting married. He thus laid the claim for a total compensation of
Rs.40,75,000/- under different heads for the injuries sustained by him.

4. The respondent resisted the claim of the appellant. The Tribunal
considering the evidence placed by the appellant, both oral and
documentary, awarded in all Rs.30,60,160/- as compensation to the appellant
under different heads. Against the said award, both the appellant as well
as the respondent filed appeals before the High Court of Karnataka, the
appellant seeking enhancement, while the respondent for reduction. The
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and partly allowed
the appeal filed by the respondent and reduced the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal from Rs.30,60,160/- to Rs. 6,32,000/-.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant at
the time of accident, was a young boy of 24 years age and was unmarried.
He completed his Engineering in Metallurgy and was working in a private
company as Quality Engineer and was getting Rs.17,200/- p.m. The appellant
is very intelligent, and because of amputation of his left leg above the
knee, he suffered more than 80% permanent disability, and his future became
very bleak. The appellant had to resign his job as an Engineer and take up
a desk job in a private Bank, which he may lose due to recession in the
economy. However, the High Court has without any valid and proper reason,
without considering the above facts and without appreciating the evidence
properly, has drastically reduced the just and reasonable compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. He thus prayed that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, just and reasonable compensation be granted to
the appellant.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported
the judgment of the High Court insofar as it reduced the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, and further contended that the reduced
compensation awarded by the High Court being just and reasonable in the
facts and circumstances of the case, needs no further enhancement.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the respondent.

8. The fact that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident is not
in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is B.E. Degree
holder in Metallurgy and was working as Quality Engineer in Hospet Steels
Ltd. Though the appellant contended that at the time of accident he was
earning Rs.17,200/- per month, but in the absence of any document produced
by the appellant to prove the same, the Tribunal as well as the High Court,
took the monthly salary of the appellant at Rs.12,840/- as evidenced by
Ex.P35, and we do not find any error with the said income taken by the
Tribunal and the High Court. The appellant due to the injuries sustained
by him, undisputedly, was out of employment for a period of two years.
However, the High Court committed an error in holding that the appellant
was out of employment for only six months. As the appellant was out of
employment for a period of two years (24 months), his loss of earnings for
the said period would be Rs.12,840/- x 24 = Rs.3,08160/-, which the
Tribunal has rightly awarded.
9. The Tribunal taking into consideration the monthly salary of the
appellant at Rs.12,840/- and considering his young age at 24, applied the
multiplier 17 and having regard to the 60% permanent disability suffered by
him, arrived the compensation towards future loss of earnings at
Rs.15,72,000/-. However, while agreeing that the appellant that as per
Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he suffered 80% permanent
disability, taking into consideration the subsequent employment of the
appellant in Industrial Development Bank of India as a Grade-B Officer,
held that the appellant did not suffer any loss of future earnings on
account of his permanent disability, and accordingly, disallowed the claim
of the appellant under the head ‘loss of earnings’.

10. We have considered the material placed before us, particularly the
evidence of the Doctor, who stated that the appellant suffered 60%
disability of the total body, and in his cross-examination denied the
suggestion that the appellant does not require any further treatment. The
fact that the appellant has resigned as Quality Engineer from Hospet Steels
Ltd and took up desk job in Industrial Development Bank of India because of
his permanent disability, suffered by him in the accident is not in
dispute. Obviously, because of the permanent disability suffered by the
appellant, who is an Engineer by profession, cannot take up such
profession, which requires moving from one place to other place.
Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court that the appellant has not
suffered any financial loss because of permanent disability having regard
to the fact that subsequently he took up employment in Industrial
Development Bank of India as Grade-B Officer, cannot be sustained. Once
the permanent disability is fixed, taking into consideration, its impact on
the employment/profession of the claimant, the compensation has to be
awarded. Since the disability suffered by the appellant, which is fixed at
60% and which is permanent in nature, impacted his employment and future
prospects, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly
determined the compensation Rs.12,840/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.26,19,360/- towards
loss of future earnings, and taking into consideration the 60% permanent
disability suffered by the appellant, awarded him the actual compensation
under the head ‘loss of future earnings’ at Rs.15,71,616/- by rounding off
the same to Rs.15,72,000/-.

11. The appellant, admittedly, was in hospital as an inpatient for a long
time. He was operated upon for two times, and presently he is able to move
with the assistance of an artificial limb, and he still has to take
treatment, as is evident from the evidence of the Doctor, and considering
the fact that loss of limb causes lot of pain to any living being, we are
of the considered opinion that compensation payable to the appellant under
the head ‘pain and agony’, should be reasonable. The Tribunal has awarded
Rs. 70,000/-, and we feel it appropriate to enhance by another Rs.50,000/-,
and upon such enhancement, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.1,20,000/-
under the head ‘pain and agony’. Therefore, we hold that the High Court
erred in reducing the compensation payable to the appellant under the head
“pain and agony’.

12. The compensation payable to the appellant under the heads ‘loss of
amenities’ and ‘loss of marriage prospects’, also requires enhancement.
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities’.
We feel it appropriate to enhance the same by another Rs.1,00,000/-. Upon
such enhancement, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.3,50,000/- under
the head ‘loss of amenities of life.

13. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of marriage prospects’
. We feel it appropriate to enhance the same by another Rs.50,000/-, and
on such enhancement, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under
the head ‘ loss of marriage prospects.

14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical
expenses. Considering the fact that the appellant still requires treatment
and has to change his artificial limb as and when required, we are of the
considered opinion that the compensation under the said head needs
enhancement, and accordingly, we enhance the same by another Rs.50,000/-.
The appellant therefore, would be entitled to Rs.5,50,000/-.

15. In view of the evidence produced by the appellant that he has spent
about Rs.3,10,000/- towards medical expenditure, including conveyance and
attendance fee, for the period he was under treatment, we are of the
opinion that the same needs to be granted, and accordingly, we grant the
same as awarded by the Tribunal, and find fault with the High Court in
reducing the same.

16. Thus, in all, we hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation
of Rs. 33,10,160/- as under:
|1. |Pain and Agony |Rs.1,20,000/- |
|2. |Medical expenditure, including |Rs.3,10,000/- |
| |conveyance, attendant fee etc (During | |
| |the period of treatment | |
|3. | |Rs.3,08,160/- |
| |Loss of income during | |
| |hospitalization/treatment | |
| |Loss of future income |Rs.15,72,000/- |
|4. | | |
| |Loss of happiness and loss of amenities|Rs.3,50,000/- |
|5. | | |
|6. |Loss of marriage prospects |Rs.1,00,000/- |
|7. |Future medical expenses |Rs.5,50,000/- |
|IN TOTAL | |
| | |
| |Rs. 33,10,160/- |

17. The above compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the
date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal till the date of
payment,

18. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and allow
the appeals in the above terms with no order as to costs.
…………………………………………CJI.
(P. SATHASIVAM)

 
……………………………………………J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)

 
……………………………………………J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 23 , 2014
———————–
9

 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,806,271 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,863 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com