Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pankaj Mithal, Shashi Kant, JJ.
Pradeep Kumar Tripathi - Appellant
Versus
Satish Kumar & Ohters - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 2094 of 2008
Decided On : 06-02-2017
Compensation - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - The court awarded increased compensation to the claimant-appellant based on the loss of 100% earning capacity due to amputation, despite 65% permanent disability. The court also applied Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Accidents Claims Rules, 1988, which provides for adding 50% of the amount of existing salary towards future prospects for determining the loss of earnings.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant-appellant, a driver of a U.P. Roadways Bus, suffered injuries in an accident with a truck, resulting in the amputation of his right leg below the knee. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation based on 65% permanent disability and loss of income.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that despite 65% disability, the claimant suffered 100% loss of income due to the nature of his occupation as a driver. The court also applied Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Accidents Claims Rules, 1988, to add 50% of the existing salary towards future prospects for determining the loss of earnings.
Issues: The issues involved the assessment of compensation for the claimant's loss of earning capacity and the applicability of Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Accidents Claims Rules, 1988, which came into force during the pendency of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimant was entitled to compensation based on 100% loss of income, considering the nature of his occupation as a driver, despite 65% permanent disability. The court also applied Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Accidents Claims Rules, 1988, to add 50% of the existing salary towards future prospects for determining the loss of earnings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and increased the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering the claimant's 100% loss of earning capacity and applying Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Accidents Claims Rules, 1988.
Pankaj Mithal and Shashi Kant, JJ.
The claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment, order and award dated 29.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.221 of 2003, Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Vs. Satish Kumar and others, whereby the compensation of Rs.7,78,800/- has been awarded to the petitioner with 6% simple interest per annum from the date of presentation of claim petition i.e. 24.04.2003 till its payment and the respondent no.3 Insurance Company has been directed to satisfy the award and to recover it later from the respondent no.1, the owner of the truck.
2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant.
3. The appeal is proceeding ex-parte against the respondents no.1 and 2 in view of the order dated 17.01.2017 as despite deemed service of notice upon them, no one had appeared on their behalf.
4. Respondent no.3 is represented by Sri N.K. Srivastava.
5. The claimant-appellant was working as a driver of U.P. Roadways Bus, which met with an accident on 13.01.2003 with truck no.HR-69-2837. The claimant-appellant suffered injuries. On account of injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant in the said accident, his right leg below the knee was amputated. His was certified to be 65% permanently disabled.
6. The claimant-appellant was aged about 33 years and was drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- per month.
7. Accordingly, the Tribunal, by applying the multiplier of "17", assessed the loss of income of the claimant-appellant to be Rs.5,000 x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,20,000/- and then reduced it as per the disability certificate in determining compensation of Rs.6,63,000/- with interest.
8. The submission of learned counsel for the claimant-appellant is that as he was working as a driver. The amputation of his leg has resulted in loss of his entire income. Therefore, despite 65% disability there is 100% loss of income. Secondly, no compensation has been awarded for the future prospects of the claimant-appellant.
9. There was no dispute that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the truck.
10. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 (1) TAC 785 has cited an example, wherein it has been stated that if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60% but if the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be 100%, as he is neither in a position to drive nor to work as a carpenter.
11. In view of the above, since the claimant-appellant herein was a driver and his left leg has been amputated though he may have suffered permanent disability of 65% but it has rendered him incapable to drive, resulting in 100% loss of his earning capacity.
12. Thus, the claimant-appellant was entitled to compensation on the basis 100% loss of income rather than on the basis of 65% permanent disability as has been done by the Tribunal.
13. It is uniformly acceptable that in awarding compensation in motor accident cases some addition for loss of future prospects of earnings of the deceased or the injured should also be made. The above principle has been incorporated in U.P. Motor Accidents Claims Rules, 1988 enforced w.e.f. 26.09.2011. Rule 220-A of the Rules provides that if a person is below 40 years of age, 50% of the amount of his existing salary be added towards future prospects for determining the loss of earnings.
14. It may not be out of context to state here that Rule 220-A of the Rules had come into force with effect from 26.09.2011 during pendency of this appeal after the accident. Therefore, an ancilliary issue arises if it can be applied in the present case.
15. The question is no longer res intigra. It has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of UPSRTC Vs. Smt. Madhu Sharma and others, 2004
AI
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
