With Accident Records Intact, Madras HC Rejects Insurer’s Limitation Challenge To Injured Construction Worker’s 12-Year-Late Claim, But Cuts Award To Rs 4.97 Lakh

The claimant, a construction coolie, alleged that she was injured when the auto-rickshaw in which she was travelling was struck by an insured mini lorry on 5 November 2005.

She underwent prolonged treatment for a serious right-hand injury and claimed that she could no longer perform her usual work.

She filed her claim petition on 4 July 2017, nearly twelve years after the accident, attributing the delay to poverty, lack of legal knowledge and inadequate guidance.

The Tribunal found the mini-lorry driver negligent and awarded Rs.6,09,245, with interest payable only from the award date.

The insurer appealed, challenging both the Tribunal’s entertainment of the delayed claim and its assessment of 100% loss of earning capacity, despite a 60% permanent-disability assessment.

The Court applied the principle that claims under the Motor Vehicles Act are to be considered in the context of the Act’s beneficial purpose, while a claimant’s explanation for delay must be assessed on the facts of the individual case; poverty or lack of legal knowledge alone does not excuse every delay.

It considered Purohit and Company v. Khatoon Bee and Another, (2017) 4 SCC 783, on stale claims and limitation.

On disability, the Court applied the principle that physical disability is not automatically equivalent to loss of earning capacity; the functional impact on the claimant’s particular occupation must be assessed on the available medical and occupational evidence.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to entertain the claim because the claimant’s serious injury and prolonged treatment were supported by medical records, and the FIR, Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, treatment records and medical testimony remained available for adjudication.

The insurer did not establish that the delay had caused specific prejudice to its defence; in these circumstances, the delay alone did not justify rejecting the claim.

As to earning capacity, the claimant’s right-hand injury was especially relevant to her manual work as a construction coolie, but the record did not establish that she was incapable of every form of work.

The Court therefore found 100% loss of earning capacity excessive and assessed functional loss at 80%, applying the multiplier calculation of Rs.3,000 × 12 × 15 × 80%.

The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s entertainment of the claim but reduced the compensation from Rs.6,09,245 to Rs.4,97,245 by revising the loss-of-earning-capacity assessment to 80%; the other heads were confirmed.

The insurer was directed to deposit the modified sum, after adjustment of any amount already deposited, with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The judgment contains inconsistent directions on the interest start date: paragraph 9.2 refers to the date of the claim petition, while paragraph 9.3 directs interest from the award date, 22 November 2018, until deposit.