Facts
The claimant, Smt. Sangeeta Prajapati, filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, in Claim Case No. 84/2022 dated 21.02.2023
Source reference: para. 1On November 26, 2021, the claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries, including multiple fractures to her left leg, femur, and fibula bone of her right leg, and femur bone of her left leg, when an Innova car driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 1 dashed into the motorcycle she was on
Source reference: para. 2The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,51,651/- with 6% interest per annum
Source reference: para. 1The claimant had sought Rs. 1,96,00,000/-
Source reference: para. 2The medical documents indicated multiple fractures, a bone of the left leg divided into four parts, a cut injury below the heel of the left leg, and a fracture of the femur bone of the right leg
Source reference: para. 6A permanent disability certificate (Ex. P/9) issued by the District Medical Board, Rajnandgaon, showed 48% permanent disability, with both knees partially stiff and proper calcification
Source reference: para. 6Dr. Rajesh Sadani, a member of the medical board, proved the certificate, which was valid for one year and six months from August 27, 2020
Source reference: para. 6The Tribunal assessed the functional disability at 25% and this finding was not challenged
Source reference: para. 7Issues
1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the claimant at Rs. 9,000/- per month, when the minimum wage for an unskilled labourer in November 2021 was Rs. 9,280/-
Source reference: para. 32. Whether the learned Tribunal granted a meager amount for pain and suffering and failed to grant separate compensation for attendant charges
Source reference: para. 3, 9Law Applied
The court applied the principles of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for assessing compensation in motor accident claims, specifically regarding the determination of notional income, future prospects, and compensation under conventional heads such as pain and suffering and attendant charges
Source reference: paras. 3The court also considered the minimum wage rates applicable to unskilled laborers
Source reference: para. 3The assessment of functional disability by the Medical Board, unchallenged by the respondents, was treated as final
Source reference: para. 7Reasoning
The court found that the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant's notional income at Rs. 9,000/- per month, as the minimum wage for an unskilled labourer in November 2021 was Rs. 9,280/-, and this higher figure should have been used
Source reference: para. 8The Tribunal had correctly added 25% for future prospects and applied a multiplier of 15 given the claimant's age, and these calculations were upheld
Source reference: para. 8The court agreed that the compensation for pain and suffering at Rs. 15,000/- was meager given the multiple fractures and 48% permanent disability suffered by the claimant, necessitating reconsideration
Source reference: paras. 6, 9Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to grant separate compensation for attendant charges, which the court deemed appropriate to grant
Source reference: para. 9The compensation for medical expenses (Rs. 2,70,651/-), loss of earning during treatment (Rs. 36,000/-), and special diet (Rs. 15,000/-) were upheld as adequate and unchallenged
Source reference: para. 8Holding
The appeal was allowed in part
The court enhanced the claimant's notional income from Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 9,280/-, leading to a revised income calculation
Source reference: para. 10The compensation for pain and suffering was enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-
Source reference: para. 10Additionally, Rs. 10,000/- was granted for attendant charges
Source reference: para. 10The total compensation awarded was enhanced from Rs. 7,51,651/- to Rs. 8,09,251/-
Source reference: para. 11The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 57,600/- with interest at 6% per annum within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order, but the appellants were not entitled to interest for the delay in filing the appeal
Source reference: para. 11The rest of the conditions of the impugned award remained intact
Source reference: para. 11Original Court PDF
SMT. SANGEETA PRAJAPATIvsSURENDRA MANDAVI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in