IMPORTANT POINT
Claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act can opt to convert claims from Section 163A to Section 166 for comprehensive compensation assessments, reflecting the law's flexibility in addressing victims' needs.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant (injured) being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2012, passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C. Tribunal, Durgapur, in M.A.C. Case No. 146 of 2008, under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Facts :-

“The case of the petitioner in short is that he was the driver of bus bearing no. WB-53-5502 and the said bus was proceeding from Bolpur to Bankura and when the said bus reached at Four Mile on Moregram Panagarh Road one truck bearing no. WB-23B-0478 which was coming from the opposite direction in a very high speed and negligent manner dashed the bus which was being driven by the claimant. As a result of such collision the claimant was seriously injured and his right leg sustained fracture injury and during treatment his right leg was amputed. Further case of the claimant is that due to such amputation he sustained permanent disability and lost his service as driver. Further case of the claimant is that at the time of accident he was aged about 41 years and used to earn salary amounting to Rs.3300/- per month and at the relevant point of time the bus was covered by the Insurance Policy of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the truck was covered by the insurance policy of Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Ltd.”

3. Both the insurance companies contested the case by filing written objection denying the material contention of the claim petition.

4. The claimant was examined as P.W. 1. Relevant documents were proved and marked as Exhibits 1 to 7.

5. On completion of hearing, the learned Tribunal held as follows :

“M.A.C. Case No. 146 of 2008

Dated: 15th February, 2012

Exhibit 8 is the voter identity card of the claimant Bablu Das Bairagya from which it appears that his year of birth is 1965 and the accident took place on 19.08.2008 and as such on the date of accident the age of claimant was about 43 years. As per second schedule of the M.V. Act thus multiplier 15 is applicable. P.W.-1 stated that he used to earn salary amounting to Rs.3300/- per month but failed to file a document in support thereof. No employer was examined on the side of the claimant to establish that the claimant used to get salary from that employer to the tune of Rs.3300/- per month. Though the claimant failed to produce any document in support of his claim but it is equally true that now a day even an unskilled labour also earns Rs.3000/- per month and having regard thereto it can safely be said that the claimant who used to work as a driver used to earn Rs.3000/- per month.

Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to an injured of an accident the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and non pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages includes (i) expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure (ii) loss of earnings which injured would have made had he not injured comprising (a) loss of earnings during the period of treatment, (b) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non pecuniary damages includes (i) damages for pain sufferings (ii) loss of amenities and (iii) loss of expectation of life. In the instant case in hand the claimant used to earn as a driver and due to amputation of his right leg below the knee he became incapacitated to work as a driver. Though in the Disability Certificate percentage of disablement was shown as 60% due to amputation but as the claimant was a driver the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be 100% if he is neither able to drive. But still the claimant is able to change his avocation of life as save the deformity in his right leg his other organs are normal. He still is capable to earn though with difficulty. In such circumstances, the permanent physical and functional disablement of claimant Bablu Das Bairagya is assessed around 80%. The loss of f