Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
As
regards paragraph 42 of Sarla Verma's case, though Sarla Verma's
case was partly overruled in Pranay Sethi's case ( paragraph 42 of
Sarla Verma's case sustained), we are concerned only with
paragraph 59.4 of Pranay Sethi's case which has been extracted
and reproduced supra. The reason is, the claimant was 35 years
old on the date of the accident viz., 03.07.2015 and there is no
disputation or contestation that the claimant became paraplegic.
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
As
regards paragraph 42 of Sarla Verma's case, though Sarla Verma's
case was partly overruled in Pranay Sethi's case ( paragraph 42 of
Sarla Verma's case sustained), we are concerned only with
paragraph 59.4 of Pranay Sethi's case which has been extracted
and reproduced supra. The reason is, the claimant was 35 years
old on the date of the accident viz., 03.07.2015 and there is no
disputation or contestation that the claimant became paraplegic.
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
pecuniary damages were classified as general damages. Under
pecuniary damages, loss of earning due to injury, during
treatment, future loss were all slotted. Under non-pecuniary
damages, pain and suffering, amenities and expenditure in this
regard, non-tangible increase were slotted. It may not be
necessary to dilate much on these pecuniary damages and non-
pecuniary damages i.e., special damages and general damages as
the effect of disability on earning capacity has to be assessed by
applying a test which is three fold and which has been articulated
elucidatively by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case in
paragraph 13, which reads as follows:
Ankur Kapoor Thr. Gpa vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 6 November, 2017
(iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from
discharging his previous activities and functions, but
could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities
and functions so that he continues to earn or can
continue to earn his livelihood.'
8.8 To be noted, as already alluded to supra, Raj Kumar's
case (supra) has been followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ankur Kapoor's case (supra). This governs the field. In the case on
hand, the claimant having become paraplegic obviously could not
have continued her avocation and therefore what the said MACT
has fixed at 90% is not disability but loss of earning capacity.
There is a clear distinction between percentage of disability and
percentage of loss of earning capacity. This also has been
elucidatively laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's
case (supra) and the relevant paragraph is paragraph 13 (supra).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/13
C.M.A.No.3089 of 2023
This means that the second point also does not cut ice with us.
1