SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Raj) 145

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G. Dhanasekar Vs. M.D., M.T.C.L. (Kurian, J.)
HON'BLE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
HON'BLE KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
G. Dhanasekar
Versus
M.D., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited
Civil Appeal No(s). 2008-09 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 35565-35566/2011), decided on 12.02.2014

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 168 — Injury matter — Compensation for functional disability — Calculation of compensation amount — No case of contributory negligence is made out — Appellant was 46 years of age — Percentage of permanent physical disability can be taken as the extent of functional disability — Functional disability assessed at 35% — Victim is not totally disabled to engage in driving and it has to be seen that he can not continue his career as earlier — Annual Income, after deducting 1/3 of the total income for personal expenses, add 30% towards increase in future income then Multiplier of 13 is applied — 35% of such amount will be the compensation amount plus medical expenses etc — Since the appellant is compensated for functional disablement, he will not be entitled to any other compensation on account of physical disability or loss of earning capacity. (Para 14)

       Appeal allowed.

        eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 168 & 'kkjhfjd {kfr lEcU/kh ekeys & d`fR;d fu%'kDrrk gsrq izfrdj & izfrdj jkf'k dh x.kuk & va'knk;h ykijokgh dk ekeyk ugha curk & vihykFkhZ 46 o"kZ dh vk;q dk Fkk & LFkk;h 'kkjhfjd fu%'kDrrk ds izfr'kr dks d`fR;d fu%'kDrrk dh lhek ds :i esa fy;k tk ldrk gS & d`fR;d fu%'kDrrk 35% fu/kkZfjr dh & ihfM+r ;ku pykus esa fu;qDr fd;s tkus ls iwjh rjg ls fu%'kDr ugha gS vr% ;g lqfuf'pr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s fd og igys dh rjg viuk thou tkjh ugha j[k ldrk & futh [kpsZ gsrq dqy vk; dk 1@3 fgLlk dVkSfr djus ds ckn okf"kZd vk; esa 30% Hkkoh vk; esa o`f) gsrq tksM+s fQj 13 dk xq.kd ykxw fd;k tkrk gS & ,slh jkf'k dk 35% vkSj fpfdRlh; O;; bR;kfn izfrdj dh jkf'k gksxh & pwafd vihykFkhZ dks d`fR;d fu%'kDrrk gsrq izfrdj iznku fd;k tkrk gS] vr% og 'kkjhfjd fu%'kDrrk vkSj dekus dh {kerk dh gkfu ds dkj.k fdlh vU; izfrdj dk gdnkj ugha gksxkA ¼in la[;k 14½

       vihy Lohdkj dhA

       

Hon'ble KURIAN, J.—Leave granted.

2. Whether an accident victim is entitled to get compensation for functional disability? If so, what is the method for computation of compensation? These are the two issues arising for considerations in this case.

3. Computation of just and reasonable compensation is the bounden duty of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In view of the plethora of judgments rendered by this Court regarding the approach to be made in the award of compensation, we do not find it necessary to start with the first principles. In Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others ((2013) 9 SCC 54 = 2014(2) RLW 1185 (SC)), Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited (2013 (10) SCALE 668 = 2013(4) RLW 3224 (SC)) and in Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others ((2013) 8 SCC 389 = 2013(4) RLW 2853 (SC)), this Court recently has extensively dealt with the principles governing the fixation of compensation and the approach to be made by the courts in that regard.

4. In Rekha Jain’s case (supra), this Court following the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mubasir Ahmed and Another ((2007) 2 SCC 349), developed a very important principle on functional disability while fixing the compensation. Rekha Jain, a cine artist suffered an injury in a motor accident at the age of 24 years on account of which she suffered 30% permanent partial disability which included disfigurement of her face, change in the physical appearance, etc. It was found that on account of such development, she could no more continue her avocation as an actress and, hence, it was held that she had suffered 100% functional disability. Hence, this Court awarded compensation following the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another ((2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC)).

5. As far as compensation for functional disability is concerned, it has to be borne in mind that the principle cannot be uniformly applied. It would depend on the impact caused by the injury on the victim’s profession/career. To what extent the career of the victim has been affected, thereby his regular income is reduced or dried up will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be even situations where the physical disability does not involve any functional disability at all.

6. Now, we shall refer to the factual matrix. The appellant, driver by profession and operating a tourist taxi himself, met with a motor accident on 05.09.2008. While driving the Tata Sumo car, a bus operated by the respondent, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the car. The appellant suffered fracture on right leg and right arm. According to the doctor, on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant and the operations undergone by him to fix a thick plate in the tibia bone with five screws, the appellant will not be in a position to bend his right knee beyond 90 degrees. There is shortening of the leg by one centimeter on account of nerve injury. He would be limping while walking. He cannot lift weight over 3 kilograms. His right hand movement is restricted to 25 degrees. He will not be able to drive two wheelers and he can drive four wheelers with difficulty. To quote PW1(appellant):

“After the incident, I cannot bend my right knee beyond 90 deg. I cannot use my right hand for lifting any weighty objects. The movements in my right hand elbow and wrist has almost been restricted. I am not in a position to drive the vehicles as before. I cannot use Indian toilet or squat or carry weight. I am walking with limping. Walking and standing for some time is a painful one. Because of the dislocation of bone in the lower jaw, I am not able to open my mouth fully and speak coherently. I find it very difficult to eat hard objects. I am suffering from intermittent head ache and giddiness. I have completely lost my earning capacity. I am having severe pain and suffering.”

7.

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top