Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sri Jagannath Ojha & Anr. – Respondents
FMA 382 of 2022 with COT 9 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2023
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM - COMPENSATION - [SECTION 166 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988] - Claimant, a mason, sustained permanent disability of 80% due to diffuse axonal injury in a motorcycle accident. Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 14,03,114/-. On appeal by the insurance company and cross-objection by the claimant, the High Court held that the claimant's monthly income was Rs. 5,000/- and that the multiplier should be 18 instead of 17. The Court also awarded future prospect of 40% of annual income and non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The final compensation was determined to be Rs. 18,91,714/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a mason, was sitting on his stationed motorcycle when a rashly driven motorcycle hit him from behind, causing him serious injuries. He filed a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking Rs. 25,00,000/-.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the claimant had sustained permanent disability of 80% due to diffuse axonal injury. The Court also held that the claimant's monthly income was Rs. 5,000/- and that the multiplier should be 18 instead of 17. The Court awarded future prospect of 40% of annual income and non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the income of the victim. 2. Whether the disability certificate is inadmissible in the absence of evidence of issuing doctor. 3. Whether the disablement of the victim is permanent in nature resulting in loss of earning capacity to the extent of 100%. 4. Whether the victim is entitled to medical expenses. 5. Whether the multiplier should be 18 instead of 17. 6. Whether the claimant is entitled to future prospect. 7. Whether the victim is entitled to future medical expenditures of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Tribunal's determination of the claimant's monthly income at Rs. 5,000/- was reasonable, considering the economic factors and cost of essential commodities prevailing in 2014. 2. The Court held that the disability certificate was admissible as it was exhibited without objection and the witness who filled it up identified the signatures of the doctors who issued it. 3. The Court held that the claimant's disablement was permanent in nature and resulted in loss of earning capacity to the extent of 80%. 4. The Court held that the claimant was entitled to medical expenses as they were proved by several witnesses of the Medical Institutes where the claimant was treated. 5. The Court held that the multiplier should be 18 instead of 17 as the claimant was 22 years old at the time of the accident. 6. The Court held that the claimant was entitled to future prospect of 40% of annual income as he was self-employed and 22 years old at the time of the accident. 7. The Court held that the claimant was not entitled to future medical expenditures as he had not produced any evidence of possible future treatment or medical expenditures.
Final Decision: The High Court modified the impugned award and judgment of the Tribunal and awarded the claimant a total compensation of Rs. 18,91,714/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.
JUDGMENT :
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.) :
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 30th March, 2021 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 1st Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 2 of 2015 granting compensation of Rs. 14,03,114/- together with interest in favour of the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. The brief fact of the case is that on 4th November, 2014 at about 12:30 hours while the victim was sitting on his stationed motor cycle bearing registration no. WB-32F/4697 and was talking with a person besides Contai-Mecheda pitch road near Hena Oil (Fuel) Pump, at that time, the offending vehicle bearing registration no. WB-32D/2470 (motor cycle) in a 2 rash and negligent manner moving from Contai to Marishda lost control and dashed backside of the motor cycle of the victim. As a result, the victim sustained serious injuries all over his body and thereafter became disabled. On account of such injuries and the subsequent disablement, the claimant-injured filed application for compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- together with interest under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. The claimant-injured, in order to establish his case, examined seven witnesses including himself and produced documents which have been marked as Exhibits 1 to 31 respectively.
4. The appellant-insurance company did not adduce any evidence.
5. Respondent no. 2, owner of the offending vehicle, did not contest the claim application and the case was dismissed ex parte against him.
6. By order dated 17th August, 2022, service of notice of appeal upon respondent no. 2 was dispensed with.
7. Upon considering the materials on record and the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant-injured, learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.14,03,114/- together with interest in favour of the claimant.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.
9. Challenging the impugned award, the claimant-injured has also filed a cross-objection being COT 9 of 2022.
10. Both the appeal as well as the cross-objection is taken up together for consideration and disposal.
11. Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari, learned advocate for the appellant-insurance company, submitted that the claimant-injured has failed to prove his monthly income by producing cogent evidence. However, learned Tribunal without proper assessment of evidence on record erroneously determined the income of Rs. 5,000/- as the monthly income of the victim. The accident having taken place in the year 2014 and bearing in mind catena of decisions of this Court, an income of Rs. 4,000/- per month of the victim would be reasonable.
Furthermore he submitted that the disability certificate has not been proved in accordance with law by examining the doctors who issued the same and this needs to be discounted for it being inadmissible. He further submitted that none of the doctors, who treated the injured or issued disability certificate, has been examined by the claimant-injured to establish his extent of injury. Moreover, though the disablement certificate clearly indicates that the victim sustained 80% temporary disablement yet the learned Tribunal held that the victim sustained permanent disablement which is an error apparent. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the victim, due to such injuries, was incapable of performing his regular job or the injuries has resulted in loss of earning capacity.
He further submitted that the claimant-victim has failed to prove the medical expenses of Rs. 5,82,114/- and the learned Tribunal erred in accepting such medical expenses.
In light of his aforesaid submissions, he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and award.
12. In reply to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the a
AI
The extent of compensation awarded in a motor accident claim depends on various factors, including the claimant's income, the extent of disability, medical expenses, future prospects, and non-pecunia....
In cases of permanent disability due to motor accidents, courts must consider proven income, future prospects, and the severity of injuries when determining compensation.
The court confirmed that compensation in personal injury cases must be justly reflective of actual earnings and the impact of disability, not based on inflated assumptions.
The main legal point established is that the assessment of compensation in motor accident cases should consider the impact of permanent disability on the claimant's earning capacity, and the percenta....
The court established that future prospects and non-pecuniary damages must be considered in compensation calculations for permanent disability under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The court ruled that disability assessment by an expert doctor should be accepted in the absence of contrary evidence. It also clarified that compensation cannot be enhanced without a cross-objection....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
