1. Motor vehicle accident causing permanent 40% disability — tribunal compensation award challenged for enhancement and setting aside. (Para 20000320310002 , 20000320310003 , 20000320310004 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Touhid Ansari @ Md. Tauhid Ansari S/o Salim Ansari – Appellant
Versus
Rohit Kumar S/o Kartik Mahto – Respondent
M.A. Nos. 391, 451 of 2017
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : S.T. Rizwi, Jayant Kumar Pandey, Sourav Anand.
For the Respondent: Alok Lal.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : S.T. Rizwi, Jayant Kumar Pandey, Sourav Anand.
For the Respondent: Alok Lal.
The assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings depends upon the effect and impact of permanent disability on earning capacity. Future prospects and the quantification of compensation for loss of earning capacity are crucial in determining the compensation amount.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Accident - Assessment of Compensation - Future Prospect - Loss of Earning Capacity - Permanent Disability - [MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT] - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166] - [The court discussed the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity, and the need to consider future prospects. The court referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.J. Parameshwarappa and Jithendran to emphasize the assessment of future loss of earnings and the quantification of compensation for loss of earning capacity. The court also considered the medical certificate, issued by the Government servant, to assess the future prospect at 30% of the total amount.]
Fact of the Case:
The injured/claimant sustained serious injury and compound fracture of the right leg and hand in a motor vehicle accident. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,99,333/- to be paid by the insurance company to the injured-claimant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the future prospect, considering the 40% disability, had not been allowed by the tribunal. The court referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to emphasize the assessment of future loss of earnings and the quantification of compensation for loss of earning capacity. The court also considered the medical certificate, issued by the Government servant, to assess the future prospect at 30% of the total amount. The court dismissed M.A. No. 451 of 2017 and allowed M.A. No. 391 of 2017 in terms of the above modification.
Issues: Assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, impact of permanent disability on earning capacity, consideration of future prospects, and the validity of the driving license issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings depends upon the effect and impact of permanent disability on earning capacity. The court emphasized the need to consider future prospects and referred to relevant judgments to quantify compensation for loss of earning capacity. The court also considered the medical certificate, issued by the Government servant, to assess the future prospect at 30% of the total amount. The court found no illegality in the tribunal's finding regarding the driving license issue.
Final Decision: M.A. No. 451 of 2017 is dismissed, and M.A. No. 391 of 2017 is allowed in terms of the above modification. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company shall be transmitted back to the learned tribunal for satisfaction of the award within eight weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tort
-
motor vehicle accidents
-
compensation for personal injury
- permanent disability assessment (Para 20000320310003, 20000320310005, 20000320310009, 20000320310010, 20000320310011, 20000320310012)
- future loss of earnings (Para 20000320310005, 20000320310010, 20000320310011, 20000320310012)
-
compensation for personal injury
-
motor vehicle accidents
-
practice and procedure
-
appeals
- motor vehicle accident claims tribunal (Para 20000320310002, 20000320310008, 20000320310014, 20000320310015, 20000320310016, 20000320310018)
-
evidence
- medical evidence (Para 20000320310009, 20000320310013)
-
appeals
Table of Contents
2. Claimant argues future prospect not considered for permanent disability — insurance company contends no enhancement warranted and driving license ground not proved. (Para 20000320310005 , 20000320310006 , 20000320310007 , 20000320310008 )
3. Compensation appeal allowed with modified future prospect — appeal to set aside award dismissed — statutory amount to be transmitted to tribunal for satisfaction. (Para 20000320310015 , 20000320310016 , 20000320310017 , 20000320310018 )
4. How should future loss of earnings be assessed for a permanently disabled claimant?
The tribunal must assess the effect of permanent disability on earning capacity, not mechanically equate the disability percentage with economic loss. After determining permanent disability and its extent, the tribunal should evaluate the claimant's prior occupation, age, and whether the disability prevents earning, then quantify future loss using the standard multiplier method. (Para 20000320310005 , 20000320310011 , 20000320310012 )
5. What weight should be given to a disability certificate issued by a government medical officer when the doctor has not been examined?
A disability certificate issued by a Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, being a government official, cannot be discarded merely because the doctor has not been examined. The certificate is admissible as evidence of the disability. (Para 20000320310009 )
6. Can an insurance company's appeal to set aside an award succeed on a driving license ground that was not proved?
No. The tribunal's finding that the driving license was not issued by the competent authority and the insurance company failed to produce an authorized person to corroborate the investigator's report is a valid finding. The appeal on this ground must be dismissed. (Para 20000320310014 , 20000320310015 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.T. Rizwi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A. No. 391 of 2017 and also for respondent No. 1 in M.A. No. 451 of 2017 and Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company in M.A. No. 451 of 2017 and also for respondent-insurance company (respondent No. 3) in M.A. 391 of 2017.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated 22.05.2017, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribag, in Claim Case No. 104 of 2008, these appeals have been preferred by the injured in M.A. No. 391 of 2017 for enhancement of the claim, whereas M.A. No. 451 of 2017 has been filed by the appellant-insurance company for setting aside the award.
3. On 23.02.2006 at about 2.00 P.M., the injured/claimant Touhid Ansari with his friend were returning from Ramgarh to his house on motorcycle. When they reached near Koriya Ghati within Mandu (Kuju) Police Station, suddenly a Dumper bearing registration no. JH-02-F-0581 was being driven by his driver rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle, they thrown on the road, as s result of which, the injured/claimant sustained serious injury and compound fracture of the right leg and hand. He was firstly admitted to Rahat Nursing Home, Bharech Nagar for immediate treatment, but the doctors, attending him, referred to Ranchi for better treatment. The injured/claimant to get more better treatment got himself admitted to Hill View Hospital & Research Centre, Bariatu, Ranchi. The patient was admitted for treatment on 28.02.2007 and discharged on 11.03.2007. It is further stated that he suffers from permanent injury and has to take full care and precaution and to remain in medical supervision for whole of his life. The expenses of Rs. 46,634/-were made on his treatment. The claimant sustained 40% deformity as per the disability certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribag. The FIR was registered and chargesheet was submitted.
4. The learned tribunal after looking into the evidences brought on record on behalf of the parties i.e. oral as well as documentary evidences, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,99,333/-to be paid by the insurance company to the injured-claimant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant in M.A. No. 391 of 2017 submits that the future prospect, considering the 40% disability, has not been allowed by the learned tribunal. In that view of the matter, the said head is required to be taken care of and this award may kindly be modified. To buttress his argument, he relied the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.J. Parameshwarappa @ Parameshwarappa @ Talalkena Gowdra Parameshwarappa vs. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8598-8599 of 2022 and SLP (C) Nos. 11730-11731 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 has discussed about the permanent disability, which is as follows:
“8……………………..
“10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning ca
