IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Injury in accident – Amount of compensation is to be calculated on the basis of last drawn salary of injured/deceased in respect of salaried persons.
(2) Compensation – Pension and retirement benefits cannot be deducted for computing income – Compensation payable under Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while amount receivable under life insurance policy is contractual.

JUDGMENT :

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in MFA No. 3569/2016 (MV-I) and MFA No. 4867/2016 (MV-I) whereby, the appeals preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2016 passed in MVC No. 5024/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru were partly allowed. The insurance company being Respondent No. 2, which filed the MFA No. 4867/2016 before the High Court of Karnataka, has not challenged the order of the High Court in the aforesaid MFA No. 4867/2016.

3. The facts of the case in brief as can be culled out from the records are that on 10.05.2010, around 1:45 pm, the original appellant (who died during the pendency of this appeal), who was working as a Sub-Inspector (MIN) in the office of DIGP, CRPF, Yelahanka Base, Bangalore, was driving his motor cycle to Yelahanka, on Doddaballapur Main Road, Karnataka, when he met with an accident with an Omni Car bearing registration KA-04/C-826 owned by the Respondent No. 1 at J. Valsal Road, CRPF Campus. When the driver of the said car took a turn towards the right side, the original appellant’s motorcycle collided with the car and he fell down, sustaining grievous injuries. On the same day, FIR No. 86/2010 was lodged against the driver of the car u/s 279, 337 IPC at P.S. Yelahanka Tr. The medical record indicates that the original appellant was admitted to the hospital on three different occasions for nearly 15 days immediately after the accident and he underwent surgery on his left leg. He also suffered heart attack due to stress and injuries.

4. Considering the injuries he suffered, a Medical Board was constituted at the Composite Hospital, Bengaluru to examine his physical fitness which certified him to be suffering from physical disabilities at 61.94%. Because of the aforesaid physical disability, he was unable to perform his duties properly and did not get due promotion and was subsequently discharged from service on 22.03.2012.

5. Prior to his discharge, the original appellant filed Motor Accident Claim MVC No. 5024/2010 on 05.08.2010 claiming compensation of Rs. 74 Lakhs from the Respondents. The MACT, Bangalore awarded an amount of Rs. 3,28,422/- to the original appellant along with 9% interest per annum as compensation vide its order dated 31.01.2014, taking into account his last drawn salary of Rs. 36,231/- at the time of the accident as well as the disability at 61.94% as assessed by the Medical Board.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the MACT, the original appellant preferred an appeal being MFA No. 3965/2014(MV) before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking enhancement of the compensation. In that appeal, it was agreed by both the parties, i.e. the original appellant and insurance company, that the matter would require reconsideration by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Karnataka High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, remanded the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to reconsider, vide order dated 12.01.2015. Accordingly, the matter was again placed before the MACT.

7. When the matter was placed for reconsideration before the MACT, in terms of the direction of the High Court, the Tribunal appointed a Commissioner, namely, Dr. Shankar R. Krupad, who had examined the original appellant in Columbia Asia Referral Hospital where he was initially treated, to give his opinion on the extent of disability of the app