Facts
On 31 December 2020, a goods vehicle struck the six-year-old claimant while he was playing near his home, causing serious injuries and lasting disability.
Source reference: p. 3–6The Tribunal awarded ₹51,87,000 in compensation.
Source reference: p. 3–6The insurer appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the quantum and arguing, among other things, that the disability assessment was excessive.
Source reference: p. 3–6On appeal, a Medical Board assessed the claimant’s whole-body disability at 82.5%.
Source reference: p. 9Issues
1. Whether the insurer established that the Tribunal had awarded excessive compensation warranting modification.
Source reference: p. 7–82. What order should follow from the Court’s determination of the compensation issue.
Source reference: p. 7Law Applied
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal’s award.
Source reference: p. 2Applying National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court allowed a 40% addition for future prospects when assessing the claimant’s future income.
Source reference: p. 10The Court used a monthly income of ₹15,000, referring to the Central Government notification dated 3 January 2020, and applied a multiplier of 15 to the child’s future-income claim.
Source reference: p. 9The Court assessed disability by reference to the Medical Board’s whole-body disability certificate.
Source reference: p. 9Reasoning
The Court rejected the insurer’s contention that negligence should be attributed to the child, noting that the driver had pleaded guilty and that negligence could not be fixed on the minor.
Source reference: p. 8It found the Tribunal’s income assessment based on another case inappropriate absent comparable circumstances, and instead used monthly income of ₹15,000, added 40% for future prospects, applied multiplier 15, and used the Medical Board’s 82.5% disability assessment. This produced ₹31,18,500 for loss of future income.
Source reference: p. 8–10The Court also revised several other heads to reflect the child’s injuries, treatment needs, loss of amenities, and the parents’ lost income during the child’s laid-up period; it left medical expenses at ₹25,000.
Source reference: p. 10–12Holding
The appeal was allowed in part. The Court reduced the total compensation from ₹51,87,000 to ₹35,93,500, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment.
The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation and accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the certified judgment.
Source reference: p. 12–13Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19881
Original Court PDF
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGERvsISHWAR S/O. SANTOSH MANJANNAVAR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
