AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 05.01.2009 passed by the Tribunal, whereby claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 was
allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the challenge made by the Insurance Company in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of
compensation awarded to respondent No.1. Learned counsel has further submitted that there was no evidence on record that the appellant had
suffered any loss in his income vis-Ã -vis disability suffered by him. Tribunal should have taken disability of the appellant to the extent of 50%, in view
of Clause 5 of Second Schedule of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the “Actâ€). Percentage of loss of earning capacity should be taken as per Item no. 20 to 21 of Part II
of Schedule I of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of ‘15’ where as multiplier of
‘14’ was liable to be applied to work out the amount of compensation.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is rather
on a lower side as no amount of compensation has been granted to the appellant towards loss of future prospects.
Respondent No. 1 had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered
by him in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 08.02.2007. As per Exhibit-1, appellant had suffered permanent physical impairment to
the extent of 70%. Appellant had suffered fracture of left leg bones and amputation was done below knee with stump length of 8 c.m. Â As per
Exhibit-131, gross salary of the appellant was Rs. 8,339/-. Appellant was aged between 40-45 years, at the time of accident. Hence, appropriate
multiplier to work out the amount of compensation vis-à -vis disability suffered by the appellant would be ‘14’.
Section 163-A and 166 of the Act read as under:-
“Section-163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.â€
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of
the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of
motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.â€"For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent disability†shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent
disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles
concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second
Schedule. ]
Section-166. Application for compensation.â€" (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1)
of section 165 may be madeâ€
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be
made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be
impleaded as respondents to the application.
Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in
which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:
Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that
effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.
 The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation
under this Act.â€
As per Clause 5 of Second Schedule of the Act 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. When an employee, suffers injuries
in a motor vehicle accident while on duty, he can either seek compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 from his employer or
can file a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act. Claim petition under Section 163-A can be filed where an injured suffers permanent
disablement or a person dies out of use of motor vehicle.
Section 163-A and 166 of the Act deal with different cause of actions. So far as the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant to the effect
that compensation amount was liable to be paid as per Second Schedule of the Act is concerned, the same is liable to be rejected as the same can be
considered while deciding claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act.
In the present case, claimant had suffered injuries in the motorcycle accident and has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. Appellant
has suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 70% as per Exhibit-1, disability certificate given by the Board of Doctors. There is nothing
on record to lead to the inference that the said certificate has not been correctly issued by the Board of Doctors. Hence, the disability suffered by the
appellant is liable to be taken as 70%.A perusal of Exhibit-1 does not show that the disability referred in the said certificate relates to only the leg of
the appellant. In these circumstances, disability suffered by the claimant can be taken as disability suffered by him qua entire body. Tribunal has taken
the income of the claimant as Rs. 8,000/- per month while making calculations quantum of compensation. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to
receive Rs. 8,000/- x 12 x 14 x 70% = Rs. 9,40,800/- by way of compensation. Appellant would be further entitled to receive an addition of 30% of the
said amount towards his loss of future prospects and the said amount comes to Rs. 2,82,240/-. Sum total of the said amounts comes to Rs. 9,40,800/- +
Rs. 2,82,240/- = Rs. 12,23,040/-. Without considering the compensation qua other heads, the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal to the tune
of Rs.
12,20,000/-, in all, thus, does not require any reduction.
Dismissed.