Entitlement to loss of earning for premature discharge from service due to amputation-induced disability.

The appellant, a 59-year-old Deputy Manager (Production) at Prakash Industries Limited, was involved in a motor accident on April 2, 2018, when a trailer (CG-13-L-2049) driven negligently struck his motorcycle.

The accident resulted in the amputation of his left hand below the elbow.

The appellant filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, asserting that the disability forced his discharge from service 14 months prior to his scheduled retirement.

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Janjgir, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,14,250 but denied any amount for loss of earning, citing a failure to prove the salary slip (Ex. A/18) through a company official.

The appellant sought enhancement of this award.

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of earning despite the non-examination of a company official to prove salary documents.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under conventional heads, specifically regarding attendant charges, was just and proper.

The Court applied the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically Section 173 regarding appeals and the principles of "just compensation" under Section 166.

It relied on the principle that in the absence of a specific rebuttal or suggestion in cross-examination by the insurer, the claimant's testimony regarding his income and premature discharge due to disability should be considered credible for assessing loss of earning.

The High Court observed that while the Tribunal rejected the salary slip (Ex. A/18) and bank passbook for lack of formal proof, the claimant’s oral testimony regarding his basic pay of Rs. 42,100 and his discharge 14 months prior to retirement remained uncontroverted during cross-examination.

The Court reasoned that since the amputation directly caused the premature loss of employment, the appellant was entitled to loss of earning for those 14 months calculated at his monthly income.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Tribunal failed to award attendant charges despite the claimant’s 50-day hospitalization, which necessitated a modification under conventional heads to ensure the compensation was "just".

It held that the claimant is entitled to a loss of earning of Rs. 5,89,400 (Rs. 42,100 x 14 months) and an additional Rs. 10,000 for attendant charges.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 4,14,250 to Rs. 10,13,650.

The Insurance Company was directed to pay the additional amount of Rs. 5,99,400 within 60 days, while the interest rate and other terms of the original award remained intact.