AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
The Insurance Company/appellant has assailed the quantum part of compensation awarded on 21.12.2023, passed in Claim Case No.39/2022 by the learned First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur, whereby compensation to the tune of ₹8,52,413/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been awarded on account of injuries sustained by the claimant.
Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company, would submit that in a motor accident dated 23.08.2021, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 65%. He would contend that the learned Tribunal assessed the functional disability at 22%. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal considered the monthly income of the claimant as ₹12,930/-, assessing the annual income at ₹1,55,160/-. He would argue that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law in granting 40% additional sum towards future prospects. He argues that in an injury case, there is no provision for granting future prospects, and therefore, the award deserves to be modified.
On the other hand, Mr. Pravin Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, would submit that in injury cases where the claimant/victim has suffered permanent disability, compensation towards future prospects is permissible. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalan D. alias Lal v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2020) 9 SCC 805.
Mr. Tulsyan would further submit that the claimant has filed a cross-objection for enhancement of compensation under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC read with Rule 242(3) of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. He would contend that the learned Tribunal granted a consolidated sum of ₹40,000/- for pain and suffering, attendant charges, and special diet, which is on the lower side. He would further contend that no compensation has been granted towards transportation expenses, and therefore, enhancement is warranted.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record.
In the matter of Lalan D. Alias Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted 40 % future prospects to the victim who had suffered 100 % disability. The relevant para 7 is reproduced as under:-
"7. The High Court has assessed monthly income of the victim to be Rs.3500/. This was enhanced from the Tribunal's quantification of Rs.2,500/ per month. We do not want to disturb the finding of the High Court on this point. This is essentially a finding on question of fact. The respondent insurance company has cited the case of Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avatar Tomar & Ors. [(2012) 2 SCC 267] to contend that in the context of loss of future earning, physical disability resulting from an accident ought to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. The approach of the Tribunal as also the High Court in the case of the victim has been in that line only. The respondents also sought to rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of Priya Vasant Kalgutkar vs. Murad Shaikh & Ors. [(2009) 15 SCC 54]. This case, however, relates to computation of compensation for injuries suffered by a minor. Ratio of this decision has no application in the facts of this case. We are, however, also of the opinion that the High Court went wrong in not awarding any sum under the head of loss of future prospects. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], a Constitution Bench has opined that the standardisation of just compensation is to include addition of future prospects to the income of the victim at the time of occurrence of the accident. This was a case where the victim had succumbed to the injuries. The present appeal relates to a victim, who has survived the accident but his disability has been assessed to be 100% by the High Court. We confirm this finding of the High Court. In the case of Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [(2019) 7 SCC 217], a Bench comprising of two Judges of this Court found 50% of the income of the victim was to be assessed as loss of future prospects. Earlier, this Court broadly took the same view in the case of Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways [(2014) 3 SCC 210]. The course mandated by this Court in the case of Parminder Singh (supra) is addition to the monthly income of the victim, 50% thereof as loss of future prospects to arrive at compensation for loss of income for the purpose of application of the multiplier. This method of computation is based on sound logic and we choose to apply the same methodology in this appeal also. The loss of earning capacity of the first appellant is 100%. On this basis, his loss of future earning would have to be calculated treating income of the victim to be Rs.3,500/ per month, to which loss of future prospects at the rate of 40% thereof is to be added, which would make it Rs.4900/ per month. This is the computation method directed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) so far as selfemployed persons are concerned. We direct addition of 40% as there is no material before us to prove that the victim had a permanent job. Evidence before the Tribunal was that he was a skilled labourer in a building construction project. There was no evidence that he was on their permanent roll. The multiplier to be applicable in this case would be 16 following the specification contained in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. Accordingly, his loss of future earning would have to be calculated first by multiplying Rs.4,900/ by 12, which would come to Rs.58,800/ This would be his annual income. Once multiplier of 16 is applied, his loss of future earning would come to Rs.9,40,800/, considering that degree of his disability is 100%. As the appellant has survived though at present in almost "coma stage" as observed by the High Court, we reject the insurance company's plea for making any deduction towards personal living expenses."
From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the claimant suffered 65% disability, and the disability certificate issued by the competent medical board has not been disputed by the Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal has assessed the functional disability of the claimant to the extent of 22% and computed compensation accordingly. The learned Tribunal further granted 40% towards future prospects.
The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalan D. Alias Lal (supra), strengthens the method adopted by the learned Tribunal; therefore, the contention made by Mr. Mahishwar that the learned Tribunal granted compensation for future prospects without any basis appears to be misconceived and is hereby rejected.
However, the learned Tribunal has granted a meager amount towards pain and suffering, attendant charges, and special diet and has failed to award any compensation towards transportation expenses. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is recomputed as under:-
S.
No.
Head of
Compensation
Awarded by the
learned Tribunal
Awarded by this
Court
1.
Income
Rs.12,930 x 12 =
1,55,160
Rs.1,55,160/-
2.
Future
Prospect
40 % = 2,17,224/-
Rs.2,17,224/-
3.
Disability
(22 %)
47,789/-
Rs.47,789/-
4.
Multiplier (17)
Rs.8,12,413 /-
Rs.8,12,413 /-
5.
Pain and
suffering
Rs.40,000/-
Rs.20,000/-
6.
Special diet
Rs.10,000/-
7.
Attendant
Rs.10,000/-
8.
Transportation
None
Rs.10,000/-
Total
Rs.8,52,413/-
Rs.8,62,413/-
Final
Compensation
Rs.8,62,413-
Rs.8,52,413
Rs.10,000/-
In view of the above calculation, the claimant is held entitled to an enhanced sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The claimant shall be at liberty to withdraw the awarded amount in accordance with the law.
As a result, the appeal is dismissed, and the cross-appeal is allowed in part.