Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud & Ors  Insc 1118 (2 November 2007)
Bhan & D.K. Jain
O R D
E R Civil Appeal No.5108 of 2007 (arising out of SLP) No. 19611 of 2005)
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 Ramesh Prajapati. When the
mini truck reached Chulha Gulhai, a truck 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 of the 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 examining the
injuries, Board came to the conclusion that the appellant had suffered 45%
permanent disability. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident and
was working as a driver and earning Rs.4,000/- per month.
was lodged. A claim was also filed against the owner of truck 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 of compensation.
Tribunal by its order dated 25th June, 2004 awarded a compensation of
Rs.45,000/- for the 45% permanent 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.
a total sum of Rs.72,000/- was awarded as compensation along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment.
Being aggrieved, appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Jabalpur which has been dismissed by the
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that as a result of the
impact of injuries suffered by the appellant, the appellant cannot pursue his
vocation of driving any longer and the Tribunal as well as the High Court have
grossly erred in not awarding any compensation towards the loss of his earning
capacity. That, keeping in view the injuries suffered by him, the compensation
awarded is too low. Counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, Respondent No.3, has supported the judgment and order passed by the
Learned counsels for the parties have been heard at length.
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 of future income. After the fracture of tibia, it is doubtful if
the appellant can even drive again. Even if he pursues 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.
the appellant is required to be compensated for the loss of earning due to the
injuries suffered by him in the accident.
Taking into consideration the present income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/- per
month; and the permanent disability of 45% suffered by him, we are of the view
that the capacity of the appellant to earn in future would be reduced by
Rs.1,800/- per month approximately. If 1/3rd is deducted towards miscellaneous
expenses, the loss of income comes to Rs.1,200/- per month which, in turn,
comes to Rs.14,400/- per annum. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of
accident. Taking the multiplier to be 18 [as per the Second Schedule to Section
163A of the Act], the total loss of income comes to Rs.2,59,200/-.
For the reasons stated above, the loss of income is assessed at Rs.2,59,200/-.
The appellant would be entitled to the 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 of filing of the claim petition till
Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order passed by the Courts below
stands modified to the extent indicated above.