Union of India and another vs Krishan Singh and another

This appeal is filed by the Union of India challenging the award dated 30.07.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadarwah

primarily contending that in this case of injury, the Tribunal has granted compensation on the basis of 60 % disability suffered by the claimant. It is

further stated that the amount on account of medical expenses has been granted without there being any vouchers/bills and medical certificates,

therefore, compensation of Rs. 7,45,200/has been erroneously determined. To simplify the findings, the following extract from the judgment is

reproduced as follows:

From the above evidence I am of the opinion that petitioner was earning Rs. 150/per day from all sources. This way monthly income

of petitioner comes to Rs. 4500/and if we multiple this monthly income with 12, the annual income comes to Rs. 54,000/. The doctor

has opined that petitioner has suffered 60% permanent disability in his right elbow joint and cannot do hard work and zamindari work

also. So whatever he was earning annually at the time of accident, the capacity to work has been reduced to 60%. We have assessed

that he was earning Rs. 54000/annually and if we deduct 60% if of this amount, it comes to Rs. 32400/. This means that petitioner

has been deprived of Rs. 32400/annually because of his 60% disability of right elbow joint. The right arm is a very important organ in

the body and most of the routine works are done with this hand and if it suffers 60% disability, it is a great loss to the person who has

suffered, in his right arm.

I have already stated that petitioner was 32 years of age at the time of accident and under normal circumstances, he would have

worked upto 55 years at least in order to maintain himself, his wife and children. The wages of the mistry and labourer could also

enhance in these 22 years. The age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 32 years and upto 55, another 23 years were

available to the petitioner for work. But he has suffered annually Rs. 32400/because of disability in the right arm. If he has lost Rs.

32400/annual, so in 23 years he has suffered monitory loss of Rs. 7,45,200/due to 60% disability in the right arm.

So I think, keeping in view the disability which the petitioner has suffered because of this disability an amount of Rs. 745200/( i.e. Rs.

32400x23) is just and reasonable compensation to be given to the petitioner, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the

case.

Accordingly, I allow the petition of the petitioners and award Rs. 745200/as compensation to the petitioner which shall be paid by

the respondents. Respondents shall deposit this amount in this Tribunal within 60 days from today. A copy of this order be given to

ld. PP for forwarding same to the respondents for compliance. This file after due completion be sent to records.

The Tribunal has not applied its mind while granting compensation in this case, as multiplier neither can be adopted higher than 18 in a case of

death nor in a case of injury. This has been clarified in the decision of Supreme Court in case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and

others v Trilok Chandra and others, (1996) 4 SCC 362.

In this case, compensation has been granted erroneously by the learned Tribunal by applying 23 as multiplier for fixing the compensation. More

so, the Tribunal has failed to determine the compensation on the appropriate heads, namely, loss of income due to disability suffered, pain and

suffering, medical charges, if any, attendant charges, if any, extra nutrition and transport charges, if proved. Instead the learned Tribunal has

awarded compensation in an erroneous manner.

In this view of the matter, the award of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. On remand, Tribunal is

directed to dispose of the matter afresh at an earliest, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

While disposing the claim petition, Tribunal shall also consider the plea of the appellantUnion of India, while granting the compensation.

Registry to transmit the record to the Tribunal along with a copy of this order.