Facts
On May 8, 2011, the appellant was a pillion rider on a motorcycle that was struck from behind by a car driven rashly by respondent No. 1.
Source reference: para 2(i)The appellant sustained a trimalleolar fracture and compound Grade-I fracture of the medial malleolus.
Source reference: para 10On July 19, 2024, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 1,76,257/- with 9% interest in M.A.C.P. No. 656 of 2017.
Source reference: para 1The appellant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement, contending that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects and awarded inadequate sums for actual loss of income and non-pecuniary heads.
Source reference: para 4Issues
Whether the claimant is entitled to an addition for future prospects in the calculation of future loss of income.
Source reference: para 9Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of actual loss of income, pain and suffering, and special diet/attendant charges is just and adequate.
Source reference: paras 10–12Law Applied
The principles for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Source reference: no citationNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to justify adding a percentage for "future prospects" to the victim's income.
Source reference: para 9Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (2022) INSC 1202 to determine that 10% of the monthly income should be added for a claimant in the relevant age bracket (56 years) even in injury cases.
Source reference: para 9Reasoning
The Court found the Tribunal erred by excluding future prospects from the assessment of future loss of income. Given the appellant was 56 years old, the Court added 10% to his monthly notional income of Rs. 4,980/-, resulting in Rs. 5,478/-, and applied a multiplier of 9 and disability of 16% to arrive at Rs. 94,716/-.
Source reference: para 9Regarding "actual loss of income," the Court determined that given the severity of the trimalleolar fracture and prolonged physiotherapy, the Tribunal's award for 2 months was insufficient; it was increased to 6 months.
Source reference: para 10The Court observed that the length of medical treatment and the nature of injuries warranted doubling the compensation for "pain, shock, and suffering" (to Rs. 30,000/-) and "special diet, attendant charges and transportation" (to Rs. 20,000/-) to meet the standard of "just compensation".
Source reference: paras 11–12Holding
The Court partly allowed the appeal, answering that the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation.
The total compensation was increased from Rs. 1,76,257/- to Rs. 2,29,826/-, resulting in an additional award of Rs. 53,569/-, with the Insurance Company ordered to deposit the additional amount with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till realization within six weeks.
Source reference: paras 14, 15–16Original Court PDF
RAMESHBHAI KALYANBHAI CHAUHANvsRAKESHKUMAR ISHWARLAL PATEL
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in