AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant/insurer impugns judgment and award dated 02.05.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahada in M.A.C.P. No. 202 of 2001, whereby Tribunal passed an award of Rs.9,46,000/- in favour of respondent No.1/claimant under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. (Hereinafter the parties are referred as per their original status in claim petition for brevity).
On 22.02.2000, claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle and when he reached near village Molgi, a Jeep bearing registration No. MH-18-H-0058, which was driven in rash and negligent manner, gave dash to motorcycle. The claimant suffered fracture of left side jaw, lost two teeth and sight of left eye, apart from injuries on his right hand and forehead. Initially, he was treated at Municipal Hospital, Shahada and thereafter by Dr. Nikhil Shah at Dhule. At the time of accident, claimant was serving as officer in Dena Bank and earning salary of Rs.15,162/- per month.
The claimant instituted M.A.C.P. No. 202 of 2001 against owner, driver, and insurer of Jeep attributing negligence against Jeep driver. The claimant contended that he suffered 100% disability and, eventually, suffered loss of earnings, Hence, raised claim for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The claim was contested on behalf of respondent insurer. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence, observed that claimant suffered 53% permanent disability. As he was earning Rs.7,510/- per month, he suffered future loss of earnings, which was quantified at Rs.7,63,200/-. The Tribunal assessed medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,11,944/-and after deducting amount of Rs.73,055/- which was reimbursed by employer of claimant, awarded Rs.1,37,889/- towards medical expenses. After adding compensation towards non-pecuniary heads, total award for Rs.9,46,000/- has been passed.
Mr. Gatne, learned Advocate appearing for appellant/ insurer submits that claimant was serving in a Bank at the time of accident, even after accident, he resumed his duties and opted voluntary retirement under VRS scheme of Dena Bank. He received all benefits including compensation and pension as per scheme. Therefore, finding recorded by Tribunal regarding 53% loss of future earning commensurate with the percentage of permanent disability is erroneous. According to Mr. Gatne, Tribunal accepted claim of medical expenses without proof. As such, the award of compensation in that count is excessive and exorbitant. In support of his submissions, he relies upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 .
Per contra, Mr. Bolkar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.1/claimant supports impugned order. He submits that claimant had suffered permanent loss of vision of left eye apart from other injuries. Tribunal is justified in working out compensation towards future loss of earning as disability suffered by claimant triggered the circumstances which made claimant to abandon job at a young age. In support of his submissions, he relies upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439.
Having considered submissions advanced by learned advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that there is no dispute about motor accident and consequential injuries suffered by claimant. The dispute is only as regards to assessment of compensation. The claimant was serving in Dena Bank at the time of accident. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Shah suggest that claimant has lost vision of left eye. The Tribunal worked out compensation assuming 53% loss towards future earning commensurate with the percentage of permanent disability.
In this backdrop, it is necessary to refer pleadings of claim petition and evidence affidavit tendered by claimant. He stated that he suffered 100% permanent disability. He lost total earning capacity. He was constrained to take long leave and remain bed-ridden for long period, causing loss of income. Due to physical infirmity, he would not be able to get official promotion and thus he lost hope of a bright future. During cross-examination, he admitted that he resumed duty in Bank after discharge from hospital. He denied suggestion that he retired under voluntary retirement scheme of Bank, but admitted that he voluntarily retired from his service.
The appellant Insurance Company has filed documents depicting that claimant joined his services after discharge from hospital. He was transferred from one place to another. He was paid regular salary. On 16.09.2000, after joining, he was transferred from Shahada to Deopur Branch. Thereafter, on 16.01.2001, he filed an application seeking voluntary retirement under Bank scheme namely “Dena Bank Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000”. On 01.04.2001, order of pension payment has been passed and VRS pension @ 3,708/- is sanctioned with effect from 01.04.2001. The certificate of Bank confirming that claimant was paid salary till date of his retirement and that retirement under VRS was opted by claimant, which was not on account of disability.
The aforesaid evidence shows that claimant had suppressed the fact of voluntary retirement while filing claim petition or in evidence affidavit. Apparently, claimant’s voluntary retirement was not deference to permanent disablement. Eventually, compensation cannot be worked out by assuming loss of future income commensurate with percentage of permanent disability. Although Mr. Bolkar, learned advocate appearing for claimant endeavors to contend that claimant's decision to take voluntary retirement was owing to permanent disablement, claimant has neither pleaded in claim petition nor states in his evidence affidavit that he was forced to take such a decision because of permanent disablement.
In aforesaid backdrop, it is difficult to hold that claimant suffered future loss of earning deference to permanent disability as done by Tribunal. The fact remains that he suffered loss of vision of left eye and multiple injuries in accident. Therefore, although claimant is not entitled to claim compensation for future loss of earning, it is necessary to work out compensation under non-pecuniary heads.
In case of Sidram (supra), in paragraph no.40 with reference to the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained terms and general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability. The relevant general principles are as under :-
“10.Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11.What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 341.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551, observed that in cases of permanent disablement compensation has to be assessed on various heads. The reference can be given to observations in para 9, which reads thus :
“9.Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant : (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.”
In light of aforesaid exposition of law, claimant would be entitled for compensation towards non-pecuniary damages on various counts. The permanent disablement itself is a separate head for grant of compensation, irrespective of loss of future earnings. Apart from that, pain and suffering, discomfort in life, loss of confidence in life and loss of expectation of life, needs to be compensated.
In light of aforesaid exposition of law, this Court finds that compensation can be re-assessed as under :
| Sr. No. | Heads | Entitlement |
| 1. | Permanent disability (due to loss of vision of left eye) | Rs. 3,00,000/- |
| 2. | Pain and suffering | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| 3. | Loss of expectation of life | Rs. 1,00,000/- |
| 4. | Medical expenses | Rs.1,37,889/- |
| 5. | Diet and nutrition attendant charges | Rs. 4,480/- |
| 6. | Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life | Rs.60,000/- |
| 5. | Loss of social prospects, inconvenience and discomfort | Rs.29,381/- |
| 6. | Loss of leave (57 days X Rs. 250) | Rs. 14,250/- |
| Total | Rs. 7,46,000/- |
In light of aforesaid calculation, this Court finds that although claimant is not found entitled for compensation towards loss of future earning, the compensation can be appropriately enhanced on non-pecuniary heads, which were ignored by Tribunal.
In result, award passed by Tribunal needs modification. Hence, following order :
ORDER
First Appeal is partly allowed.
The judgment and award dated 02.05.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahada in M.A.C.P. No.202 of 2001 is modified.
Respondent No.1/claimant to receive total compensation of Rs.7,46,000/- from appellants and respondent no.2 along with interest @ 9% per annum from date of presentation of claim petition. The compensation amount already released/paid as per award of Tribunal be appropriated.
The appellant–Insurance Company shall deposit compensation amount as per award, together with accrued interest, within a period of 10 weeks from today, if not already deposited.
On deposit of compensation amount, same be released in favour of respondent no.1/claimant.
Modified award be prepared accordingly.
Except aforesaid modification, impugned judgment and award shall stand unaltered.
Pending Civil Applications are also disposed of.