SUNIL KUMAR v. RAM SINGH GAUD AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 876

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ASHOK BHAN, D.K. JAIN

Case summary

SUNIL KUMAR v. RAM SINGH GAUD AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

I ~ , SUNILKUMAR v. RAM SINGH GAUD AND ORS. NOVEMBER 2, 2007 ~ [ASHOK BHAN AND D. K. JAIN, JJ. ] -I. _ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: S. 166 and Schedule II to s. 163-A-Compensation for loss of earning due topermanent disability-Collision between two vehicles- Driver ofmini truck sustaining grievious injuries resulting in 45% permanent disability-MACT allowing Rs. 45,0001- as compensation for 45%permanent disability, cost oftreatment and towards pain and mental agony-High Court dismissing appeal ofclaimant-HELD: .. >( Tribunal as well as High Court have not awarded any compensation ~ towards loss offuture income-Afterfracture oftibia, it is doubtful if the appellant can even drive again-Disability suffered by appellant wouldsurelyreduce earning capacity-Therefore, appellant is required to be compensatedfor loss ofearning due to irifuries suffered by him in accident-Taking into considerationpresent income ofappellant as Rs.

4,0001- per month minus I/3rd deduction towards miscellaneous expenses, the permanent disability of45% suffered by him, appellant being 29 years old at the time ofaccident, and taking multiplier to be 18, total loss ofincome comes to Rs. 2,59,2001- for which appellant would be entitled in addition to the sum already awarded by the Tribunal-He wouldbe entitledto interest at the same rate i. e. 6%per annum on the enhanced amount as well from the date offiling claim petition till realization. CIVIL APPELLATE nJRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5108 of 2007. -'-:-+-' From the final Judgment and Order dated 12. 10. 2004 ofthe High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M. A. No. 2728 of2004. SUNIL KUMAR v. RAM SINGH GAUD 877 Tara Chandra Sharma (SCLSC), for the Appellant. Santosh Paul (for M. J. Paul) for the Respondent. The following Order ofthe Court was delivered by ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Factual background of the case is that on 10th July, 2003, appellant was driving his mini truck No.

MP 20 G-7705 towards Bargi ' along with one Ran1esh Prajapati. When the mini truck reached Chulha Gulhai, a tmck dumper bearing No. MP 18-6392 came from the opposite side, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit the mini truck ofthe appellant with the result that the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his leg. He suffered three fractures including one at tibia. He was examined by the Medical Board. After exanlining the injuries, Board came to the conclusion that the appellant had suffered 45% pennanent disability. Appellant was 29 years ofage at the time ofaccident and was working as a driver and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. 3. FIR was lodged.

A claim was also filed against the owner oftruck dumper as well as the insurance company before the Motor Accident , Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (for short 'the Act'), inter alia, , stating that in the accident, appellant suffered fracture in his tibia and two other places. Appellant claimed Rs. 8,20,000/- by way ofcompensation. / 4. Tribunal by its order dated 25th June, 2004 awarded a compensation ofRs. 45,000/- for the 45% pennanent disability suffered · by the appellant; Rs. 21,000/- towards the amount spent on the treatment and Rs. 6,000/- for physical pain and mental agony suffered by the appellant. Tims, a total sun1 ofRs. 72,000/-was awarded as compensation , along with interest@6% per annum from the date ofthe claim petition -1.... till payment 5. Being aggrieved, appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which has been dismissed by the impugned ' order. ....

____, , --, 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that as a result ofthe impact ofinjuries suffered by the appellant, the appellant cannot pursue his vocation ofdriving any longer and the Tribunal as well as the High Court have grossly erred in not awarding any compensation towards the loss ofhis earning capacity. That, keeping in view the injuries suffered by him, the compensation awarded is too low. Counsel appearing for the r- Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Respondent No. 3, has supported ~ the judgment and order passed by the courts below. 7. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard at length. 8. We find substance in the submission put forth by the counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation towards loss offuture income. After the fracture oftibia, it is doubtful ifthe appellant can even drive again.

Even ifhe putsues some other vocation, he would not be able to earn as much as he is earning now. The disability suffered by the appellant would surely reduce his earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant is required to be compensated 1 for the loss ofearning due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. f 9. Taking into consideration the present income ofthe appellant as Rs. 4,000/- per month; and the pem1anent disability of45% suffered by him, we are ofthe view that the capacity ofthe appellant to earn in future would be reduced by Rs. 1,800/- per month approximately. If l/3rd is deducted towards miscellaneous expenses, the loss ofincome comes to Rs. 1,200/- per month which, in tum, comes to Rs. 14,400/- per annum. Appellant was 29 years ofage at the time ofaccident. Taking the multiplier to be 18 [as per the Second Schedule to Section 163A ofthe Act], the total loss ofincome comes to Rs. 2,59,200/-. ~. 10. For the reasons stated above, the loss of income is assessed at Rs.

2,59,200/-. The appellant would be entitled to tl1e aforesaid amount in addition to the sum already awarded by the Tribunal, which has been upheld by the High Court. The appellant would be entitled to interest at the same rate, i. e. , 6% per annum on the enhanced amount as well from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till realization. ~~ 11. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order passed by the Courts below stands modified to the extent indicated above. RP. Appeal allowed.