Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT AIZAWL BENCH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Sh. Gregory Vanlalfinga - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Lalbiaktluangi - Respondent
MAC App. No. 2 of 2016
Decided On : 28-06-2017
MACT Act, 1988 - Section 166 - MV Act - Sections 163 A and 168 - Accident - Injuries - Appellants counsel submits that compensation awarded by Tribunal is not just compensation and accordingly appellant has made a challenge to impugned Judgment & Award on ground that learned Tribunal has not taken multiplier of while calculating compensation amount payable to appellant - Secondly learned Tribunal has not considered/calculated future prospects of appellant - Third ground of challenge made by appellants is that learned Tribunal has not given any compensation for non-pecuniary damages - Learned counsel for respondent No - 2 submits that appellant has not made driver of accident vehicle a party before learned and also before this Court - She submits that as driver of accident vehicle is a necessary party matter should be remanded back to learned for a fresh trial after impleading driver of accident vehicle - Held, Apex Court has held that in cases of deceased victim of accident being below years there must be an addition to actual income of deceased while computing future prospects - In present case appellant was years at time of accident - In case of Apex Court has granted loss of future prospects to accident victim as his loss of earning capacity was assessed due to permanent disability suffered by appellant of that case - It is quite apparent that even persons who have permanent disability are also entitled to be given compensation for loss of future prospects of income - Accordingly in view of law laid down by Apex Court there must be an addition to actual income of appellant while computing future prospects - Appeal is accordingly allowed.
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Juliana Lalhmangaihi, counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None appears for the respondent No. 1.
2. The Order dated 08.07.2016 passed by this Court states that service is complete against the respondent No. 1. As such, the matter is being heard and disposed of ex-parte the respondent No. 1.
3. The appellants' case in brief is that he had met with an accident while travelling from Guwahati to Aizawl by Tata Sumo No. MZ01-C 8169 (Maxi-cab) belonging to the respondent No. 1. The accident took place on 24.08.2012 at around 3:30 A.M at Nongsning Village, in East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya. The vehicle driven by one Lalhlimpuia, fell down a deep gorge and the appellant suffered spinal injury in the accident, which resulted in the appellant being fully paralyzed. The doctor's certificate states that the appellant suffered from 100% permanent disability.
4. The appellant thereafter filed a claim petition before the learned MACT, Aizawl under Section 166 of the MACT Act, 1988 and the same was registered as MACT Case No. 47/2014.
5. The learned MACT, Aizawl thereafter passed Judgment & Award dated 08.04.2016 in MACT Case No. 47/2014, wherein it awarded the appellant the total compensation amount of Rs. 30,76,038/-.
6. The appellants' counsel submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not "just compensation" and accordingly, the appellant has made a challenge to the impugned Judgment & Award dated 08.04.2016 on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not taken the multiplier of 18 while calculating the compensation amount payable to the appellant. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has not considered/calculated the future prospects of the appellant. The third ground of challenge made by the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has not given any compensation for non-pecuniary damages.
7. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the appellant has not made the driver of the accident vehicle a party before the learned MACT and also before this Court. She submits that as the driver of the accident vehicle is a necessary party, the matter should be remanded back to the learned MACT for a fresh trial, after impleading the driver of the accident vehicle.
8. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 also submits that as per the second schedule of the MV Act, the proper multiplier to be applied in the case of a person between the ages of 21 to 25 years is 17. As such, there was no infirmity with the learned Tribunal having adopted the multiplier 17, while calculating the compensation payable to the appellant.
9. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 also submits that as the appellant is getting his disability pension, there is no loss made by the appellant and as such, there is no requirement of calculating the future prospects of the appellant. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 also submits that non-pecuniary damages cannot be quantified and would have to depend upon the facts of each case.
10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
11. The admitted facts of the case is that the appellant was a passenger in the Maxi Cab which fell down deep gorge. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant sustained 100% permanent disability due to the damage caused to his spinal cord by the accident. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant, who was serving in the 19th Assam Rifles was earning Rs. 22,179/- per month. However, after the accident, the appellant had been given a disability pension of Rs. 7,408/- per month. The learned Tribunal took the income of the appellant at Rs. 14,771/- per month, after deducting Rs. 7,408/- disability pension. The break-up of the compensation awarded to the appellant by the learned Tribunal is re
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
