AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
In the present appeal, the original claimant approached before this Court seeking enhancement in the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 544 of 2014, decided on 11.11.2019.
The undisputed facts of the present appeal is that the appellant/claimant was working as a labourer. On 25.04.2014 at about 19.30 hours, when the appellant was moving toward Sangharsh Nagar Chowk for purchasing vegetable on his motorcycle, at that time, the offending vehicle i.e. water tractor, bearing No. MH-31-CV-5886 came in a high speed from wrong side and gave dash to the motorcycle from back side. As a result, the appellant fell down on the road and his right leg has crushed due to passing of the vehicle on his leg. Immediately, he was admitted to Radhakrishna Hospital and then to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. At Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, due to the grievous injury caused to his leg, same was required to be amputated from knee.
The appellant, therefore, filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, Nagpur by stating that at the time of accident, he was 44 years old and working as a Mason. According to him, his monthly income was Rs.10,000/- per month. As such, he has claimed the total compensation of Rs.19,10,000/-.
The respondent Insurance Company appeared before the Claims Tribunal. They have denied the entire claim of the appellant. According to them, appellant himself was responsible for the negligent act and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not responsible to pay any compensation. So also, raised other grounds that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective license and the offending tractor was plied without having valid permit and fitness certificate.
The learned Tribunal has framed the issues and after recording the evidence, has decided the claim petition. The learned Tribunal has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid licence and the appellant was not responsible for the accident. It is the fault of the offending vehicle by which the accident is caused. As such, this aspect is not disputed in the present appeal. So also, there is no cross-appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the findings of the Tribunal that the appellant is responsible for the accident or there is any breach of the insurance policy.
In respect of compensation which was claimed before the Tribunal, the appellant has produced before the Claims Tribunal the disability certificate stating that his right leg has been amputated from knee. He was working as a Mason and due to the amputation of leg, he is not now in a position to carry out his regular work as Mason and, therefore, considering 100% functional disability, he is entitled for compensation. However, the learned Tribunal has considered the functional disability only 75% and his monthly income as Rs.5000/- per month and on that basis granted compensation to the appellant to the tune of Rs.7,40,000/-. Hence, appellant claimed enhancement of compensation in the present appeal.
The appellant in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Paramesh vs. VRL Logistics Ltd. and Another, decided on 23.06.2026, reported in 2026 LawSuit (SC) 717. From this judgment, it is pointed out by the appellant from paragraph Nos. 25 and 26 that amputation of a right leg above the knee causing physical disability to the appellant therein rendered him incapable of effectively carrying the manual and physical work and he is unable to earn for his livelihood. In such cases, the restriction of loss of earning capacity to 70% merely on the basis of physical disability is not justified. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in such cases the functional disability shall be considered 100%. The relevant paragraph Nos.25 and 26 of the judgment reads as under:
“[25] The amputation of the right leg above the knee has not merely caused physical disability to the appellant but has rendered him incapable of effectively carrying on the manual and physical work which constituted his only source of livelihood. In such circumstances, restricting the loss of earning capacity to 70% merely on the basis of physical disability would not be justified.
[26] Having regard to the nature of avocation carried on by the appellant, the extent of injuries suffered by him and the principles laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the functional disability suffered by the appellant is required to be assessed at 100% and not at 70% as assessed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. Consequently, the loss of earning capacity suffered by the appellant deserves to be computed by treating the functional disability at 100%. Taking the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 12,000/- with addition of 40% towards future prospects and applying the multiplier of '17' as adopted by the Courts below, the compensation payable towards loss of earning capacity is recalculated accordingly.”
The appellant stated that the he was working as a Mason. He was getting around Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- per day and, therefore, monthly income comes around Rs.20,000/-. But he has restricted his claim to Rs.18,000/- and, therefore, same needs consideration in the matter.
It is the submission of the respondents that Mason is not getting the regular work for entire month. It is based upon the work allotted by the Contractor under whom the Mason works. There is no concrete evidence produced on record that the appellant was getting regular work for entire month and he was getting any particular amount. Therefore, the submission of the appellant to consider his monthly income at the rate of Rs.8000/-is not justified in the matter.
It would be relevant to note that after COVID-19, the laborer as well as the masons were getting the amount around Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- per day for the work which they rendered in any construction site. Therefore, in my opinion, considering the rate which is paid to the laborer and masons, the amount of Rs.6500/- per month will be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the accident was taken place in the year 2014.
In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant is correct to states that due to amputation of leg from knee caused 100% earning loss to appellant. So also, considering the fact that appellant was working as Mason, his monthly entitlement Rs.6500/- per month is justified in the matter, accordingly, the appellant is entitled for compensation Rs.17,50,000/- as under:
| Head | Entitlement |
|---|---|
| Monthly income | Rs.6,500/- |
| Functional Disability Assessed | 100% |
| Multiplier | 14 (Age 44 years) |
| Loss of income | Rs.8000 x 12 x 14 x 100% = Rs.10,92,000 |
| Future prospect | 25% of Rs.10,92,000/-= Rs.2,73,000/- |
| Pain and suffering | Rs.50,000/- |
| Transportation Conveyance | Rs.5,000/- |
| Nutrition/Special Diet | Rs. 5,000/- |
| Medical Expenses/Medicine | Rs. 45,000/- |
| Attendant Charges | Rs. 5,000/- |
| Loss of Amenities | Rs. 75,000/- |
| Future Medical Expenses for Artificial Limb | Rs. 2,00,000/- |
| Total Compensation | Rs. 17,50,000/- |
In my considered opinion, the above compensation would be just and proper in the matter and hence, the impugned judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal needs modification. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
The appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated 11.11.2019 in Claim Petition No.544 of 2014 is modified to the extent that appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.17,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal till its full realization.
iii) The rest of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur is confirmed.
iv) The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the respondent Insurance Company to the Registry of this Court within a period of three months.
After deposit of the amount, the appellant will be entitled to withdraw the same subject to satisfaction of Registrar (Judicial).
The First Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to the costs.