IMPORTANT POINT
Remedies under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 are different – Once remedy under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is elected to be pursued by claimant and Tribunal adjudicated compensation by applying criteria and fixing income, falling back upon parameters under Workmen’s Compensation Act, is not permissible.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. Anjaria, J.

Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. The present appeal preferred by the original claimant is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2020 of the High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. No.2903 of 2018 (MV), whereby the High Court allowed in part the appeal of the insurance company, reducing the amount of compensation, and giving consequential directions.

3. The facts briefly stated are inter alia that the appellant-claimant suffered serious injuries in the vehicular accident which took place on 01.12.2015. He was a loader in the lorry travelling from Kunigal to Nelamangala. At about 2.50 a.m. near NH-75 Road, the said lorry driven at a high speed and in negligent manner, dashed with an unknown ongoing vehicle. The appellant sustained injuries in the right leg and his leg was required to be amputated below the knee. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-

3.1 While assessing the compensation for the 23 years injured appellant, the took the monthly income of the appellant-claimant to be Rs.9,000/- at the time of the accident. However, the claimant (PW-1) asserted his monthly wages to be Rs.15,600/. Because of amputation of the right leg, the medical evidence registered that the disability of the left lower limb was 70%. The Tribunal took the disability for the whole body to be 85%. Multiplier of 18 was applied to calculate the compensation. The final compensation totalling Rs.19,35,400/- was awarded.

3.2 The different heads under which the amounts were awarded, as under,

3.3 Against the aforesaid judgment and award of the Tribunal, the insurance company preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court took a different view in respect of the income of the injured- appellant to take it to be Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.9,000/- taken by Tribunal.

3.4 The High Court was of the view that since under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 the maximum income that could be considered is Rs.8,000/- the said figure should have been adopted towards the income of the injured appellant. It was observed by the High Court as under, extracting from paragraph 10,

“Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the claimant was aged about 23 years; though he has contended that he was earning Rs.16,500/- per month, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the maximum income that could be considered is only Rs.8,000/- per month. Since this is a case of injury, only 60% of that should be considered for calculating the compensation, which comes to Rs.4,800/- per month. In that the compensation is required to be considered taking into account the percentage of disability that he has suffered. In the instant case, the doctor who has treated the claimant has adduced evidence indicating that the claimant has suffered the disability to an extent of 85%. If the evidence of the doctor is accepted, then the compensation that the claimant would be entitled to is on the basis of the factor which is applicable to the case on hand, i.e., 219.95”

3.5 Consequentially, as per the calculation provided in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, the compensation was reduced by the High Court from 19,35,400/- to 10,41,022/-.

4. In the present appeal, the appellant-claimant has raised two contentions. Firstly that the High Court committed an error in taking the income with reference to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, thereby reducing the figure of income which was considered and applied by