Rajkumar Das vs. Sriram General Ins Co LTD And Anr

Facts

The appellant, Sri Rajkumar Das, was the claimant in a Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 case before the Additional District Judge, Paschim Medinipur. The appellant was injured in a road accident on May 4, 2018, when a truck allegedly negligently collided with his motorcycle. The victim suffered severe injuries, leading to the amputation of his right leg above the knee, rendering him totally disabled. The appellant filed MAC Case No-363 of 2018 seeking compensation. The offending vehicle owner did not contest, but the respondent, Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., contested the claim. The Trial Court allowed the claim, awarding Rs. 13,09,076 with interest. The appellant, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, filed the present appeal before the High Court.

Held

The Court addressed the issues concerning the percentage of disability, future prospects, and monthly income. Regarding the percentage of disability, the Court found that while the claimant suffered a permanent disability to his leg, it did not preclude him from doing some work and earning income. Therefore, the Court did not find error in the Trial Judge's assessment of 80% disability. On the issue of monthly income, the Court accepted the evidence of PW-5 that the claimant's salary was Rs. 9,000/- per month. Incorporating a 30% future prospect, the total monthly income was calculated at Rs. 11,700/-, leading to an annual income of Rs. 1,40,400/-. Applying a multiplier of 16, the loss of income was Rs. 22,46,400/-. With 80% disability, the loss of income was Rs. 17,97,120/-. Adding medical expenses of Rs. 1,13,876 and Rs. 200,000 for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and loss of expectation of life, the total calculated compensation was Rs. 21,10,996/-. However, the Court deemed Rs. 20,00,000/- to be just and reasonable compensation. The judgment and award were modified to this extent, directing the respondent insurance company to deposit Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest. The issue of the employer's GST number was not expressly decided upon but was raised as a contention by the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Learned Trial Judge erred in considering the percentage of disability to be 80% instead of 100% (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning assessment of disability under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). 2. Whether the Learned Trial Judge erred in not considering the future prospects of the claimant (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning calculation of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). 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 (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning assessment of income under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: - The Learned Trial Judge erred in assessing the disability at 80% instead of 100%. - Future prospects were not considered. - Monthly income should have been Rs. 9,000/-, as deposed by the employer. - Relied on 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, and Jagdish vs Mohan. Respondent/Insurance Company's Arguments: - The certificate of disablement was issued after 4 years of the accident and may not be reliable. - The employer of the claimant does not have a GST number for their business. - The compensation awarded is reasonable and no interference is warranted. - Relied on Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar and Anr., TJ. Parmeshwarappa vs New India Assurance, Anoop Maheshwari vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Sunil Kumar Khushwaha vs Katragadda Satyararyaxa and Ors.