Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay, in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, dismissed the first appeal filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. The Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,15,904 to respondent No. 1, Mr. Aslam Ajgarali Makrani, who suffered injuries in a motor accident. The appeal was restricted to a challenge of Rs.9,00,000, comprising Rs.2,00,000 for loss of future income and Rs.7,20,000 for future medical treatment. The appellant-insurer contended that future medical expenses were based on insufficient evidence, as the treating doctor allegedly stated an annual expense of Rs.15,000, not the higher amount used by the Tribunal. It also argued that there was no loss of future income since the claimant himself admitted he was earning the same amount after the accident. During the hearing, it was brought to the court's attention that the figure of Rs.15,000 was a typographical error in the judgment copy, and the certified copy correctly recorded the doctor's evidence as Rs.50,000 per year. The appellant's counsel conceded the typographical error. The court, therefore, considered the annual recurring medical expenditure at Rs.50,000 and applied a multiplier of 15, noting that even a 20-year multiplier could be justified due to increased life expectancy and rising medical costs. It held that the award of Rs.7,20,000 was not excessive; rather, it was a fair estimate. Regarding loss of future income, the court observed that the claimant’s right leg was shortened by two inches and he suffered a deformed and weakened foot, which could not be repaired even after seven surgeries. The impairment was graver than the loss of a limb itself. The Tribunal had relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in D. Sampath v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and awarded Rs.2,00,000. Since the claimant did not file any cross-objection or appeal, the court deemed him satisfied with that amount and declined to enhance it. Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court dismissed it with full costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Future Medical Expenses - Multiplier Method - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal awarded Rs.7,20,000 for future medical treatment based on doctor's testimony of annual recurring expenses of Rs.50,000. The appellant challenged the award relying on a typographical error showing Rs.15,000. The Court found that using a multiplier of 15 or even 20 years, in view of increased longevity and inflation, the award was reasonable and not excessive. Held that the award was fair and the challenge unfounded. (Paras 6-15) B) Motor Accident Compensation - Loss of Future Income - Permanent Disability Assessment - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The claimant suffered a shortened leg by two inches and a deformed foot after seven surgeries, a condition graver than amputation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000 relying on D. Sampath v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. As the claimant did not cross-appeal, the Court upheld the award, noting that impairment of limb use was a lifelong liability. Held that the amount awarded was justified and no interference was warranted. (Paras 16-20) C) Procedural Law - Appeal Based on Typographical Error - Effect of Correct Record - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Where the certified copy of the Tribunal's judgment showed the doctor's evidence as Rs.50,000 per year, the appellant's reliance on an erroneous figure of Rs.15,000 from a typographical error in the judgment copy was inappropriate. The Court held that the appeal memorandum based on such error could not succeed, and the appeal must be decided on the correct record. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal's award of compensation for future medical treatment and loss of future income was justified?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with full costs; Tribunal's award upheld.
Law Points
- In motor accident compensation
- future medical expenses can be calculated using multiplier method
- considering longevity and inflation
- typographical error in judgment cannot be basis for appeal if corrected
- loss of future income may be assessed based on permanent disability and earning capacity
- cross-appeal by claimant not filed indicates satisfaction
- court can take judicial notice of increased life expectancy
- impaired limb graver than amputation
