National Insurance Company Ltd vs Chittu Das And Ors

This appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge the award dated 21.02.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sepahijala District, Sonamura in case No. T.S.(MAC) 28 of 2016.

Brief facts are as under:

The respondent No.1 original claimant was travelling on a motorcycle as a pillion rider on 23.02.2016 when the vehicle collided with a four wheeler of TATA ACE make coming from the opposite direction. The claimant received serious bodily injuries. He suffered fractures and had to undergo extensive medical treatment. The doctors opined that he had suffered permanent partial disability of 45% of the body as a whole and he would be seriously restricted in his movement and work. The claimant was working as a Doorstep Bank Officer of a private bank called Bandhan Bank Ltd. drawing a salary of `12,592 on the date of accident. He was aged 37 years.

The Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,55,520 under various heads including the pain, shock and suffering, medical treatment etc. The insurance company has mainly contested the computation of compensation for future loss of income.

I have, therefore, concentrated only on this computation. The Tribunal after accepting the current income at Rs.12,592 per month applied increase of 40% for future as per the decision of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and worked out a prospective income at Rs.17,628. Considering the disability and the nature of work that the claimant was doing the Tribunal assessed the loss of income at 50% thereof, i.e. @ Rs.8,814 per month or Rs.1,05,768 per annum. A multiplier of 15 was adopted which brought the future loss of income at Rs.15,86,520 which has been hotly disputed by the insurance company mainly contending that there was no evidence of the claimant having lost his job on account of such disability.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant had argued that the claimant was engaged in collection of money from the borrowers of the bank for which he would have to go to interior parts. The accident had left permanent restriction on his movements. He was, therefore, unable to do the job.

The claimant was examined as PW-1. In his examination-in-chief in addition to describing the nature of treatment he had to undergo a considerable expenditure he had further stated that after the accident he was unable to do his work and has been left in a disabled condition. In the cross-examination the insurance company had, in fact, questioned him about his employment in the said bank.

Dr. Dipti Bikash Roy who is a Member Secretary-cum-Locomotor Specialist at the District Disability Medical Board, West Tripura was examined as PW-2. He certified that the claimant was suffering from locomotor disability in the right leg resulting into permanent disability of 45%. The injury was non-progressive. He opined that the patient will not be able to perform any physical activity standing up without any exterior support for the rest of his life.

In face of such evidence, I have no hesitation in confirming the opinion of the Tribunal that such disability had resulted into at least 50% reduction in the earning capacity of the claimant. The doctor opined that the claimant's movement would be severely restricted. In a standing up position he would not be able to perform any work without support. He was employed by a private bank. His work involved considerable movement visiting remote areas. His job was not secured unlike a Nationalized Bank or a Government Bank. His potential for reemployment would also considerably come down.

Rest of the calculations are undisputable. The Tribunal after assessing his current income merely applied the formula for future rise and multiplier as suggested by the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra). I, therefore, do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal.

Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.