Compensation in motor accident claims must be calculated precisely based on proven income, with non-pecuniary damages for disability and life-long recurring costs, such as attendant charges, determined through the multiplier method to ensure truly just and fair restitution for the injured party.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Respondent No.1, who was the Claimant No.1 before the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter, “MACT”) is a 51 year old lady, injured victim of a vehicular accident, which occurred on 23-10-2020. On that day, she was working by the roadside, when a Mahindra Bolero vehicle, driven by the Respondent No.3 hit her, on account of which she lost vision in both her eyes. A Certificate of Disability was issued by the Department of Ophthalmology, HC, HS & FW Department, District Hospital Gyalshing, Government of Sikkim, dated 24-01-2022, certifying that she has sustained 90% permanent physical impairment due to the above circumstance. The Respondent No.2 is the Power of Attorney holder for the Respondent No.1. The Learned MACT granted a total compensation of Rs. 32,46,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs and forty six thousand) only, to the Respondent No.1.

2. Aggrieved by the computation of compensation and assailing it, Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges that the computation is erroneous for the reason that, although the loss of earnings has been calculated @ Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) only, per day, for the period October, 2020, to June, 2022, however her daily wages were placed at and calculated @ Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only, for the period July, 2022, to October, 2023, without the Respondent No.1 having made any claims in her averments. While doing so the MACT relied upon a Notification of the Labour Department, Government of Sikkim, dated 11-07-2022, sans pleadings, disregarding the fact that the accident had occurred prior in time to the issuance of the Notification thereby causing serious prejudice to the Appellant-Insurance Company and an error in computation.

(i) Further, while calculating the compensation, the “total annual income” has been computed as Rs. 4,29,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and twenty nine thousand) only, by calculating Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) only, per day, for “twenty-one months” and @ Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only, per day, for “sixteen months”, resulting in a clear error in calculating the loss of income “per annum”. The compensation is accordingly required to be modified. Learned Counsel for the Appellant however had no argument with the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only, granted by the Learned MACT towards “Pain and Suffering” nor were any other grounds pressed in Appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2, while admitting that there has been an error with regard to the net annual income projected by the Learned MACT as Rs. 4,29,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and twenty nine thousand) only, which is in fact not the annual income, however apart from that, there is no reason for the Appellant to assail the invocation of the Notification dated 11-07-2022 supra by the Learned MACT for calculating loss of income @ Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only, per day. The award may be modified only to the extent of setting aside the calculation with regard to the annual income.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 had no specific submissions to advance.

5. Having heard the opposing parties at length and considered the submissions, it is apposite to notice as pointed out by Learned Counsel for both parties that, indubitably there is an error in the computation of compensation as the net annual income for both phases