Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prabhu Mehta vs Jagannath And Ors. on 7 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: III(2004)ACC82, 2005ACJ1890, RLW2004(4)RAJ2670, 2004(4)WLC96
Author: Gyan Sudha Misra
Bench: Gyan Sudha Misra
JUDGMENT Gyan Sudha Misra, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant claiming enhancement of the amount of compensation which has been awarded to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur vide its award dated 1.11.2001 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been awarded for permanent partial disablement on account of amputation of his left leg below the knee as a result of which he has been rendered disabled for his entire life.
2. It appears that the appellant was travelling on a truck bearing No. BR -13G-3131 since he was working as a 'Khalasi' on this truck which met with an accident on 18th October 1996. The appellant admittedly suffered grievous injuries on account of this accident and was admitted into the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur on 18.10.96 and was discharged from the Hospital after 24 days but his left leg from the knee had to be amputated in order to save his life. A proceeding was thereafter initiated before the M.A.C.T. Jaipur for determining the amount of compensation wherein the Tribunal after appreciation of evidence adduced by the contesting parties, determined a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation for amputation of the leg of the appellant. The appellant, feeling aggrieved with this amount, has preferred this appeal for enhancement of this amount.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vinay Mathur has submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate as the appellant has neither been compensated adequately considering the annual loss of income nor any amount has been paid for suffering mental agony, future prospectus due to his in- capacity and therefore it is a fit case for enhancement. The counsel for the Insurance Company has however submitted that the amount awarded is completely adequate and its not a case for enhancement.
4. Considering, the arguments and the counter arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, it was considered appropriate to examine the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 which has given out the method and manner of determination of compensation in case of fatal accident as also for permanent disablement and partial permanent disablement as a result of the injuries sustained in our accident. Item V under this schedule has described the manner in which the amount of compensation has to be decided in case of disability in non-fatal accident and this schedule lays down as follows:-
5. Disability in non-fatal accidents:
The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising on of non-fatal accidents:
Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty two weeks.
PLUS either of the following:-
(a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or
(b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) above.
Injuries deemed to result in Permanent Total Disablement/Permanent Partial Disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
5. While considering the case of the appellant in the light of the aforesaid provision it is sufficiently clear that such percentage of compensation is payable in the case of permanent partial disablement which is payable in case of permanent total disablement as specified under item a of Clause 5 (quoted hereinabove) and it is envisaged that the amount payable in this regard shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation. Working out the compensation on this principle, it appears that the annual income of the injured was Rs. 3,000/- per month which has been accepted as correct even by the Tribunal and thus the annual income of the injured would be Rs. 36,000/- per annum.
6. Thus acting upon the principle laid down under Item 5 of the Second Schedule, such percentage of compensation is payable in case of permanent partial disablement which is payable in the case of permanent total disablement and this has to be arrived at by applying the multiplier according to the age of the injured to the extent of percentage of injury. In the instant matter the appellant has suffered 60% injury as per the report of the Medical Board of SMS Hospital Jaipur and thus 60% of annual income of the injured Rs. 36,000/- would be Rs. 21,600/- to which if the multiplier of 18 is applied since his age at the time of accident was 25 years, the amount which is arrived at would be Rs. 3,88,800/- which the injured-appellant is obviously entitled as per the Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 plus the expenses incurred on his treatment. Since the appellant has already received Rs. 1,20,000/-, he is entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs. 2,68,000/- on the basis of the calculation made hereinabove after applying the principle envisage in the second schedule to the Act of 1988.
7. It is no doubt true that the Apex Court in case of amputation of legs have gone to the extent of awarding a much higher amount but the same depends upon the earning potentiality of the injured and cannot be applied mechanically and uniformly in all cases of grievious injury which also is envisaged in the second Schedule while laying down the criteria for assessing the compensation. If the Second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 has clearly laid down the method and manner in which the amount of compensation has to be determined, the figure which has been arrived at in case of the appellant injured, appears to be reasonable and thus the respondent-Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay be additional sum of Rs. 2,68,800/- to the appellant since he has been held entitled to receive a total amount of Rs. 3,88,800/-. In my considered opinion this amount for a person who has lost his left leg at the prime of his youth at the age of 21 years cannot be held to be exorbitant which is also in consonance with the principle laid down under the Second Schedule of the Act of 1988. Hence the respondent No. 3-The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,68,800/- to the appellant expeditiously.
8. The counsel for the appellant, however, further pressed that the appellant should also be awarded interest on the amount determined but 1 am not inclined to accept this request as the amount has been awarded to the appellant as per the principle laid down under the Second Schedule of the Act of 1988 which has taken care of all the circumstances under which the amount of compensation has to be computed. The amount which has been awarded to the appellant is on account of the grievous injury which he has sustained and after he was discharged from the Hospital, he was otherwise fit for duty except for the injury which he had sustained for which he is being reasonable compensated. It is well acknowledged that a person who lost his life or has sustained permanent disablement cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money so as to take care of his entire miseries and the amount of compensation at the most will have to be treated as a token amount which can compensate the suffering only marginally which he has sustained.
9. Besides this, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the matter of P.J. Narayan vs. Union of India and Ors. vide writ petition (Civil) No. 341/2003, decided on 9.8.2003 have also been pleased to hold that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount towards interest as the payment of interest is not its contractual liability. This can be treated as an additional reason for denying interest to the injured appellant. Besides this, the lump-sum amount of compensation which has been awarded will also fetch some interest which could be treated as compensation towards future income. The claim of interest for all these reasons do not appear to be justified and hence the same is rejected.
10. The impugned order stands modified to the extent staled hereinbefore. The appeal accordingly stands allowed but without any order as to costs.