IMPORTANT POINT
In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, Tribunal may not accept claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Appeal against Judgment passed by High Court whereby High Court partly allowed appeal and enhanced compensation awarded by Tribunal - No dispute that appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning ‘4500/- per month at the time of accident- In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, Tribunal may not accept claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time- Instantly appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, wage of the labourer was between ‘100/- to 150/- per day or ‘4500/- per month- Claim being honest and bonafide there was no reason for Tribunal to have reduced monthly earning of appellant from ‘4500/- to ‘3000/- per month- Again claimant had become permanently disabled and, had lost future earning capacity permanently- Looking to the amount awarded by Tribunal, held that the same was too less and, same held liable to be enhanced- Taking into consideration future economic loss, he would suffer because of permanent partial disability, which would not permit him to work as a Coolie or any other job, medical expenses incurred, pain and sufferings, loss of income during treatment, period of loss of future amenities and discomfort, held that interest of justice would be served if an additional amount of Rupees Two Lakhs was granted to appellant by way of compensation-Appeal allowed to said extent (Paras 14 to 17)
       Facts of the Case :
        Appellant was working as a Coolie and earning ‘4500/- per month and was riding as pillion on a motorcycle with one another , when they met with an accident herein in the instant case. Appellant sustained grievous injuries. He was treated in a private nursing home and his treatment continued for a long time. In the claim petition, it was his case and claim that even after treatment, his right hand is completely disabled and due to which, his work and livelihood completely suffered. Present Appeal has been filed against Judgment passed by High Court whereby High Court partly allowed appeal and enhanced compensation awarded by Tribunal.
       Findings of the Court :
        Instantly appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, wage of the labourer was between ‘100/- to 150/- per day or ‘4500/- per month. Claim being honest and bonafide there was no reason for Tribunal to have reduced monthly earning of appellant from ‘4500/- to ‘3000/- per month. Again, claimant had become permanently disabled and, had lost future earning capacity permanently. Looking to the amount awarded by Tribunal, held that the same was too less and, same held liable to be enhanced. Taking into consideration future economic loss, he would suffer because of permanent partial disability, which would not permit him to work as a Coolie or any other job, medical expenses incurred, pain and sufferings, loss of income during treatment, period of loss of future amenities and discomfort, held that interest of justice would be served if an additional amount of Rupees Two Lakhs was granted to appellant by way of compensation. Appeal allowed to said extent.

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 10869 of 2006 dated 9th day of December, 2009, whereby the High Court has partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) in MVC Case No. 5124 of 2004 dated 25.03.2006. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of ‘1,13,900/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit as against the claim of the appellant for ‘5,50,000/-. The High Court, by its impugned Judgment and order, has marginally increased the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant, being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court, has filed this appeal.

3. The facts of the present case are as follows :-

The appellant was working as a Coolie and earning ‘4500/- per month. He was riding as pillion on a motorcycle with one Hanumanthappa, when they met with an accident. Appellant sustained grievous injuries. He was treated in a private nursing home and his treatment continued for a long time. In the claim petition, it was his case and claim that even after treatment, his right hand is completely disabled and due to which, his work and livelihood completely suffered. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of ‘5,50,000/- by way of special and general damages on account of injuries, pain, mental agony, loss of earning, physical disabilities, shortening of expectation of life due to injuries sustained in the accident and medical expenses incurred thereon. Hanumanthappa, who was Respondent No. 1 in the Claim Petition, though served with the notice of petition, did not appear before the Court to oppose the relief sought in the claim petition. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, has awarded a compensation of ‘1,13,900/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit as against the claim of the appellant for ‘5,50,000/-.

4. Aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. The court, by its order dated 9th of December, 2009, has awarded the compensation of ‘1,33,900/-, as against ‘1,13,900/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, is before us in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the records.

6. Before the Tribunal, the appellant had examined himself (PW-1) and one Dr. P.K.Raju, Asst. Professor in Orthopaedics (PW-2) in support of his claim petition. The Doctor, in his evidence, has stated that the appellant cannot work as a coolie by using his right hand and cannot do any other manual work. Though, he was cross-examined, nothing adverse to the claim of the appellant is elicited.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, the appellant is permanently disabled, which would affect his future earning capacity as a Coolie. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that since the appellant has suffered only 41% of disability, the High Court was justified in restricting the claim against the claim made by the appellant.

8. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant’s earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The Courts have time and again observed that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 752

Cases Referred (4)