The Jharkhand High Court has enhanced the compensation awarded by Motor Accident Vehicle Claim Tribunal holding that the learned tribunal’s finding is based on extraneous consideration and beyond the weight of evidence available on record and further reiterated that percentage of permanent disability does not always equate to the loss of earning capacity.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is a practicing lawyer at Dhanbad who suffered injuries in a road accident with the respondent’s car where he suffered grievous injuries. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhanbad passed and order whereby and whereunder an award of Rs.8,16,492 /- along with simple interest @ 6 % per annum has been passed in favour of the claimant. The instant appeal has been preferred by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the Tribunal did not properly recognize the monthly income of the appellant, who is a practicing lawyer at the Dhanbad District Court and also works as a panel lawyer for the National Insurance Company since September 11, 1992, with a proven monthly income of Rs. 14,000. However, the Tribunal arbitrarily set the income at Rs. 9,000 per month without any justified reasoning.
Additionally, the counsel pointed out that the Tribunal did not calculate the compensation in line with established legal principles, neglecting to adequately consider future prospects, mental anguish, and other standard components of compensation. Therefore, the counsel contended that the current award is flawed and should be revised, entitling the claimant to an increased compensation amount.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent argued that the Tribunal properly assessed the case and determined a fair compensation amount, which does not have any legal or factual errors that would warrant interference. They also contended that the compensation calculation, based on a handicap certificate from a medical board led by the Civil Surgeon-cum-CMO of Dhanbad, which indicated that the petitioner had a 48% disability, was speculative. The failure to examine any members of the Board of doctors who evaluated and issued the Disability Certificate undermines the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the 48% functional disability and the related loss of earning capacity and economic loss. The respondents' counsel cited the judgement in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 to support their argument.
Observations of the Court:
The bench observed that in the case referencing the guidelines from Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011), not all injuries result in a loss of earning capacity, and the percentage of permanent disability does not always equate to the loss of earning capacity. Further, the court noted that the appellant, a practicing lawyer, had endured significant injuries and extensive medical treatments, which led to a substantial reduction in his income and professional efficiency due to decreased mobility.
Additionally, the court observed that there was no challenge from the defendants regarding the claimant's injuries, medical procedures, and monthly income. This lack of rebuttal supported the claimant's testimony.
The bench noted the tribunal's original assessment of the claimant's monthly income was not based on substantial evidence, leading to an adjustment based on the originally claimed amount. The court further observed that the loss of earning capacity should not be directly equated with the percentage of disablement. This resulted in a re-assessment of the claimant's future loss of earning capacity.
Finally, the court noted the final re-assessed compensation amount. It emphasized that the awarded amount should include an interest rate from the date of the claim petition's institution until the actual payment, deducting any amounts previously paid by the respondent.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court allowed the appeal and modified the impugned award.
Case Title: Gautam Kumar Banerjee vs Dr. C.P Vidyarthi and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: MA. No. 225 of 2018
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. M.B. Lal, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Yogendra Prasad
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
