2022 Supreme(SC) 1765

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
Hari Om Const. – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.7262-63 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.8196-97 of 2018)
Decided On : 13-10-2022

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessment of compensation for personal injuries should consider the long-term impact on the individual's earning capacity, even if the individual continues to be in service.

Headnote:

Compensation - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 03.11.2017 whereby the appellant, who was driving the motorcycle and one Rajinder Singh, who was the pillion rider met with an accident with a tempo bearing Registration No.HR 38 K 7828 in the area of Police Station Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. 3. The appellant has suffered multiple fracture and dislocation of the left elbow, nailing of right tibia and femur bone. The appellant undergone several surgical procedures including reconstruction of right elbow. The Board of Doctors assessed the permanent disability to the extent of 45%. The Tribunal while taking into consideration the emoluments of the appellant as Rs.18,941/-per month applied the multiplier of 16 keeping in view the age of the appellant as 32 years. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.21,94,082/-was awarded including the expenses towards physiotherapy, special diet and conveyance, loss of earnings and Rs.16,000/-towards future medical expenses, Rs.18,18,336/-was on account of loss of future income due to disability. The High Court in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company reduced the amount of compensation by applying the multiplier of 9 for the reason that there is no loss of employment. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the High Court has erred in law in reducing the amount of compensation. The appellant though continuous to be in service but his efficiency as a constable has been seriously compromised. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as Rs.21,94,082/-was just and proper keeping in view the injuries and its long-term effect on the person of the appellant. 5. Considering the above, we set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 6. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant and a pillion rider met with an accident with a tempo, resulting in severe injuries to the appellant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, but the High Court reduced the amount based on the appellant's employment status.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court erred in law in reducing the amount of compensation as the appellant's efficiency as a constable has been seriously compromised due to the injuries. The amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was just and proper.

Issues: The main issue was the assessment of compensation for the appellant's injuries and the impact on his future income due to disability.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the High Court erred in reducing the compensation based on the appellant's employment status, as the injuries had seriously compromised the appellant's efficiency as a constable. The court restored the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, considering the long-term effect of the injuries on the appellant.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, awarding the original compensation amount to the appellant.