Ranveer Singh vs Naval Singh and Others

G.D. Saxena, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been preferred by the claimant/appellant against an Award dated 30th March 2009 in Claim Case No. 130/2008 passed by the First Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior seeking enhancement of the compensation amount for the severe injuries caused in an motor-accident against the respondents, i.e., owner, driver and the Insurance company. Undisputed facts of the case are that on 16th March 2007 at public road, near Chaturvedi STD Shop in City Market, at Hindon (Rajasthan), the appellant Ranveer Singh was travelling as a cleaner in a truck bearing registration No. RJ 11 G 0544 from Gwalior to Jaipur. On the spot of accident, the applicant alighted from the truck for purchasing the mineral water, but by that time the driver drove the truck without blowing horn moved the truck. Consequently, the leg of the appellant was crushed under the wheels. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court. The injured was treated in different hospitals at Jaipur and Gwalior. During treatment, his leg was amputated, just below the knee. It is alleged that at the time of accident, the claimant was working as a cleaner on the truck involved in accident and was getting Rs. 3,000/- p.m. with daily allowances of Rs. 50/- during working days and due to imputation he became paralysed and was compelled to leave his present job. Under these circumstances, the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 62,00,000/- was submitted before the learned claims tribunal. After considering the oral and documentary evidence as adduced by the contesting parties, the learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,35,450/- by way of compensation to the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal, as mentioned above.

The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the award passed by the learned MACT for the injuries sustained by the claimant is on lower side, which was based on non-consideration of the necessary aspects such as loss of earning, pain and sufferings etc. Therefore, it is prayed that the compensation amount may be enhanced keeping in view the nature of the injuries after considering the other heads.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid prayer for enhancement of the award amount and by supporting the impugned award, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the case and the law applicable to the case.

The question for consideration is whether the learned tribunal passed the award on lower side or same is liable to be modified being exorbitant?

In Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and Others, at page 270: the Hon. Apex court observed as follows:-

In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one''s personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.

In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we find it extremely difficult to uphold the decision of the High Court and the Tribunal based on the finding that the loss of the appellant�s earning capacity as a result of the amputation of his left leg was only 50%. It is noted above that the appellant used to earn his livelihood as a cart-puller. The Tribunal has found that at the time of the accident his age was 55 years. At that age it would be impossible for the appellant to find any job. From the trend of cross-examination it appears that an attempt was made to suggest that notwithstanding the loss of one leg the appellant could still do some work sitting down such as selling vegetables. It is all very well to theoretically talk about a cart-puller changing his work and becoming a vegetable vendor. But the computation of compensation payable to a victim of motor accident who suffered some serious permanent disability resulting from the loss of a limb, etc. should not take into account such indeterminate factors.

Any scaling down of the compensation should require something more tangible than a hypothetical conjecture that notwithstanding the disability, the victim could make up for the loss of income by changing his vocation or by adopting another means of livelihood. The party advocating for a lower amount of compensation for that reason must plead and show before the Tribunal that the victim enjoyed some legal protection (as in the case of persons covered by the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) or in case of the vast multitude who earn their livelihood in the unorganized sector by leading cogent evidence that the victim had in fact changed his vocation or the means of his livelihood and by virtue of such change he was deriving a certain income.

The loss of earning capacity of the appellant, according to us, may be as high as 100% but in no case it would be less than 90%. We, accordingly, find and hold that the compensation for the loss of the appellant�s future earnings must be computed on that basis.

On coming back to the present case, it is admitted facts that on the date of accident, the appellant/claimant was working as a cleaner on the truck involved in accident. The accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the said truck. So, the owner of the truck on vicarious liability is responsible to pay the compensation to the injured-employee/cleaner. It is also admitted that in accident the injured lost his leg below knee and became permanently disabled to continue his job, consequently, his future income from working as cleaner was adversely affected and the loss of income due to accident was 100%. In this view, the injured is entitled to receive compensation on the basis of his last monthly income. The computation for loss of earning during treatment and in future will thus be @ Rs. 3000/- as rightly determined by the tribunal and after multiplication of 16 in to yearly income of Rs. 36,000/-, loss of income comes to Rs. 5,76,000/-. The compensation towards expenses for medicine and surgical treatment and also for future treatment is assessed at Rs. 30,000/- and for pain and sufferings and trauma is assessed at Rs. 20,000/-, in addition to the compensation for transportation and nursing charges as Rs. 20,000/-. In this manner, the total compensation amount comes to Rs. 6,46,000/- (Rs. Six lac forty six thousand only) which would be payable to the claimant-appellant within a period of two months from the date of this order. If the amount is not deposited in time before the tribunal, in that case the entire amount, by reducing the amount deposited in the nature of an interim Award or after award of the tribunal paid to the claimant, shall bear interest @ 8% from the date of the application till last deposit is made before the tribunal and the respondents shall also bear the cost of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with costs. Counsel Fee Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) if pre-certified.