Ankush Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors

Facts

The appellant, Sri Rajkumar Das, was the claimant in a motor accident claim case filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident occurred on May 4, 2018, when the victim, riding a motorcycle, was hit by a truck. The victim sustained severe injuries, resulting in the amputation of his right leg above the knee, rendering him totally disabled. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) allowed the claim and awarded a compensation of Rs. 13,09,076 with interest. The appellant, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, filed the present appeal before the High Court, contending that the disability was wrongly assessed at 80% instead of 100%, future prospects were not considered, and the monthly income was underestimated. The Insurance Company argued that the disablement certificate was issued late and questioned the employer's GST number.

Held

The Court held that while considering the nature of disability and its impact on income-earning capacity, it is crucial to determine if the disability affects a particular body part or the whole body. The assessment of compensation for loss of future earning capacity depends on the effect of permanent disability. The Court found that the claimant was a carpenter, and his monthly income was established as Rs. 9,000/-. Although the claimant was no longer working as a carpenter due to leg disability, the Court opined that this might still allow him to do some work and earn income. Therefore, the Learned Trial Judge did not err in considering the percentage of disability as 80%. However, the Court recalculated the compensation by considering the monthly income of Rs. 9,000/-, adding a 30% future prospect, leading to a total monthly income of Rs. 11,700/- and an annual income of Rs. 1,40,400/-. Applying a multiplier of 16, the loss of income was calculated at Rs. 22,46,400/-. With 80% disability, the loss of income amounted to Rs. 17,97,120/-. Adding medical expenses of Rs. 1,13,876/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and loss of expectation of life, the total compensation came to Rs. 21,10,996/-. The Court deemed Rs. 20,00,000/- as just and reasonable compensation. The judgment and award were modified to this extent, with the Insurance Company directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within 8 weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Learned Trial Judge erred in assessing the percentage of disability at 80% instead of 100% for the claimant, as per Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 2. Whether the Learned Trial Judge erred in not considering the future prospects of the claimant while calculating the compensation? 3. Whether the Learned Trial Judge erred in not considering the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 9,000/-, as deposed by the employer? Contentions of the Petitioner/Appellant: - The Learned Trial Judge erred in assessing the disability at 80% instead of 100%. - Future prospects of the claimant were not considered. - The monthly income of the claimant should have been considered as Rs. 9,000/-, as deposed by the employer. - Relied on cases: Pratap Narain Singh Deo VS Srinivas Sobata and Anr., Shankar Dutt VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd and ors., Chandra Magera VS Santosh A. Ganchari and Anr., Laxmisree VS Managing Director KSRTC Depot Bengaluru, Jagdish VS Mohan. Contentions of the Respondent/Insurance Company: - The certificate of disablement was issued after 4 years of the accident and may not be relied upon. - The GST number of the employer's business is not available. - The compensation awarded is reasonable and no interference is required. - Relied on cases: Raj Kumar VS Ajay Kumar and Anr., TJ. Parmeshwarappa VS New India Assurance, Anoop Maheshwari VS Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Sunil Kumar Khushwaha VS Katragadda Satyararyaxa and Ors.