AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The matter pertains to an accident which took place on December 9, 2015 in which the victim was seriously injured and he succumbed to such injuries some 15 or 18 days later.
The two principal grounds urged by the claimant-appellants are that the tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.3,000/- despite the assertion on behalf of the claimants that the victim was an educated person who had obtained a Master's degree in history and the victim earned in excess of Rs.10,000/- per month giving private tuition. The second grievance is that a bill for Rs.1, 81,000/- raised by the relevant hospital in Matigara was not accepted by the tribunal on the technical ground that the claimants could not produce any person from the hospital to formally prove the bill. Indeed, the bill was attempted to be tendered in evidence but was not permitted to be exhibited in the absence of formal proof thereof by an employee of the relevant hospital.
The respondent-insurance company says that it is the practice of this Court for some time now to take the notional income to be Rs.5,000/- for any time after the year 2016 and for the base figure to be Rs.3,000/- in respect of pre-2016 matters, based on the possible monthly income of an unskilled worker. The insurance company says that since the income of the victim in this case could not be proved, the figure of Rs.3,000/- accepted by the tribunal should not be interfered with.
There is no dispute that the victim in this case was an educated person. It appears that the victim supported his immediate family and his parents. It was possible for the victim to earn a substantial amount by giving private tuition.
Even though a norm may be fixed by a Court or a forum for the purpose of uniformity and to ensure an element of consistency, exceptions may be made upon assigning due reasons. The base figure that has been settled by the Court for some time now is in respect of persons who can be treated as unskilled workers because of their lack of qualifications. In the present case, the victim was an educated person. The Court has to be alive to the fact that private tutors do not, ordinarily, accept payments in cheques or issue receipts therefor. In such a scenario when it was evident that the victim maintained a family and even his parents were dependent on him, the tribunal ought to have taken a pragmatic view of the matter and attributed a slightly higher income to the victim than in cases of unskilled workers. Accordingly, the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- that was attributed to the victim by the tribunal is modified and increased to Rs.5,000/-.
Upon modifying the assumed monthly income of the victim to Rs.5,000/-and taking 40 per cent of such amount on account of future prospects, the notional monthly income comes to Rs.7,000/-. The resultant notional annual income has to be reduced by a third on account of personal expenses to arrive at a figure of Rs.56,000/- on which the multiplier of 17 would apply for the net compensation to work out to Rs.9,52,000/-. The multiplier 17 applies since the age of the victim was 28. The claimants have accepted that the appropriate multiplier would be 17.
The claimants are also entitled to general damages of Rs.70,000/-, taking the gross compensation to Rs.10,22,000/-.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,81,000/- which is the amount covered by the bill issued by the relevant hospital at Matigara. The bill bears the seal of the hospital and also the "Paid" stamp. It appears from the bill that the patient was admitted on December 10, 2015 and the patient expired on December 27, 2015.
The provisions pertaining to compensation for motor accidents have been introduced in the statute to provide relief to the hundreds of citizens who get injured or killed in road accidents in this country. Most of the accidents take place off highways and in rural areas and most of the victims are from the poorer background without having adequate resources. It is true that when a bill or the like issued by a third party is produced before a judicial or a quasi-judicial forum, such forum may insist that the maker of the bill or a representative of the maker of the bill be called to adduce evidence on the bill and its authenticity; at the same time, Courts and tribunals have to be alive to the fact that hospitals and doctors and other impartial witnesses are loath to attend Courts or legal hearings in view of the inordinate time involved in such process. In matters pertaining to bills relied upon by the heirs of any victim of a motor accident, unless the tribunal finds anything wrong in the bill or specific queries in such regard are raised by the insurance company or the owner of the offending vehicle, the tribunal ought to accept the bills at face value.
In the present case, the insurance company cannot demonstrate that the bill was inflated or included any unusual purchase or charge. Since no case has been made out that any entry in the bill is erroneous and since it appears from the bill that the same pertains to the treatment of the victim, who was admitted on December 10, 2015 and expired on December 27, 2015, the entire amount covered by the bill for Rs.1.81 lakh is liable to be reimbursed to the claimants.
Thus, the claimants are found entitled to get a total amount of Rs.12,03,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of lodging the claim till the receipt thereof.
The insurance company should immediately calculate the additional amount due in terms of this order since an amount of Rs.5.52 lakh with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as granted by the tribunal is acknowledged to have been received by the claimants.
The balance payment in terms of this order should be made over by the insurance company to the tribunal by October 31, 2019, so that the tribunal may release the same to the appellants herein according to their individual rights of entitlement upon proper verification and identification.
FMA 1062 of 2019 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.