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

2022 Supreme(All) 339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Dixit and Anr. - Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 3591 of 2014
Decided On : 03-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nagendra Kumar Srivastava.
For the Respondent: Vidya Kant Shukla, Amit Kumar Verma.

The percentage of physical disability does not directly correlate to the loss of earning capacity, and a proactive role by the Tribunal is necessary to assess the impact of permanent disability on the claimant's earning capacity.

Headnote:

Motor Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 168, 169 - Medical Disability Certificate - Functional Disability Assessment

Fact of the Case:

The claimant, an advocate, sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident and sought compensation for loss of earning capacity. The Insurance Company appealed the judgment, contesting the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board did not require formal proof and that the Tribunal erred in applying the incorrect multiplier for the claimant's age. The Court also noted the Tribunal's failure to assess the impact of the claimant's physical disability on his earning capacity and future prospects.

Issues: The issues included the quantum of compensation and the assessment of functional disability and future prospects.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the percentage of physical disability does not arithmetically translate into an equal measure of functional disability. It outlined a three-step test to ascertain the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity and stressed the need for an active role by the Tribunal in ascertaining the extent of disability.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh assessment of compensation, including future prospects and other relevant factors.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company, questioning the judgment and award of Mr. Gopal Kulshreshtha, the Additional District Judge, Court No.8/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar dated 16.09.2014, awarding compensation to the claimant-respondent for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

2. Mr. Sanjay Dixit, along with his friend, Jawahar Lal, was proceeding on foot, according to rule of the road, on the left-hand-side from Ram Narayan Bazar to Phool Bagh, located in District Kanpur Nagar on 23.09.2013 at about half past eleven in the night hours. As the two had traversed a small distance beyond the Baba Sweet House, a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. UP 78 AB 7211, that is said to have been driven very fast and negligently by its driver, came up behind them and hit the two on the rear side. Both Sanjay Dixit and his friend sustained grievous injuries. The passers-by, that include one Kanhaiya Lal and another Anil Kumar, amongst many others, called alarm and made efforts to apprehend the offending vehicle. The driver, however, sped away and escaped. The members of the public present, nevertheless, noted down the registration number of the offending vehicle. The Police reached the spot. The members of the public and the Police, together conveyed Sanjay Dixit and his friend Jawahar Lal for medical aid to a certain K.P.M. Hospital, where they were admitted. The two were administered first aid there. Mr. Sanjay Dixit, who has brought this claim petition, shall hereinafter be referred to as "the claimant".

3. Since the claimant had sustained grievous injuries, and the hospital where he was given first aid did not have the facility of doing an x-ray imaging, he was referred to Ursala Hospital. It is the claimant's case that until the institution of the claim petition, he was under treatment at the Ursala Hospital. The accident was reported to the Police by Bandi Lal, a brother of the claimant's friend and the other injured Jawahar Lal. On the report lodged by the aforesaid informant relating to the accident, Case Crime No. 156 of 2013, under Sections 279, 338 IPC, Police Station - Philkhana, District - Kanpur Nagar was registered. The claimant is an Advocate, practicing in the District Courts at Kanpur since the year 1996. The claimant's case is that he had a monthly income from his profession in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, which was the source of his livelihood and that of his family members. As a result of the accident, the claimant says that he has become physically handicapped, the injury afflicting his right lower limb. It has become difficult for him to move about. He further says that the handicap has adversely affected the claimant's profession and, in turn, wiped out his income therefrom. It is also the claimant's case that he cannot do any work or activity in the same manner as he could before the accident. At the time of the accident, he was aged 44 years. The claimant asked for a total compensation of Rs. 29,33,000/-. The owner of the car, one Nazim Khan and the Insurance Company, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. were arrayed as opposite parties to the claims petition. Both the owner and the Insurance Company contested the claimant's case, denying the involvement of the offending vehicle, besides raising other pleas. It would be idle to refer to the pleadings of the parties, inasmuch as the limited issue that has been raised on behalf of the Insurance Company in this appeal is about the quantum of compensation.

4. There were five issues framed by the Tribunal and all of them were answered in favour of the claimant. In view of the limited challenge raised by the appellant, findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issues Nos. 1 to 4 are not required to be examined and must be held to have become final inter partes. It is the fifth issue alone that is the subject matter of this app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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