Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Arjanbhai Raisingbhai Rathod, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 19.05.2005. The appellant was returning from a marriage function and was hit by a jeep driven rashly and negligently by opponent No. 1, resulting in amputation of his right leg. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad, in M.A.C.P. No. 1213 of 2005, partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs.2,95,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the appellant filed the present appeal. The High Court considered the issues of disability assessment, multiplier, notional income, and compensation heads. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in assessing disability at 40% and applied 70% disability considering the amputation. The multiplier was corrected to 18 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, and notional income was enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per month. Compensation for pain and suffering was increased to Rs.1,00,000/-, medical expenses to Rs.50,000/-, and future loss of income was recalculated. The total compensation was enhanced to Rs.7,04,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation for Amputation - Permanent Disability - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The appellant sustained amputation of right leg due to rash driving of a jeep. The Tribunal assessed disability at 40% but the High Court enhanced it to 70% considering the nature of injury and its impact on earning capacity. Held that for amputation of a leg, disability should be assessed at 70% (Paras 5-6). B) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Age of Claimant - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The appellant was 22 years old at the time of accident. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 17, but the High Court applied multiplier of 18 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC. Held that for age 22, multiplier of 18 is appropriate (Para 7). C) Motor Accident Claims - Future Loss of Income - Notional Income - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The appellant was a labourer with no proof of income. The Tribunal took notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month, but the High Court enhanced it to Rs.4,000/- per month considering the minimum wages. Held that notional income should be Rs.4,000/- per month (Para 8). D) Motor Accident Claims - Pain and Suffering - Medical Expenses - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- for medical expenses. The High Court enhanced pain and suffering to Rs.1,00,000/- and medical expenses to Rs.50,000/-. Held that compensation for pain and suffering and medical expenses should be enhanced (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for amputation of the right leg is just and proper, and whether the assessment of disability and multiplier is correct.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.2,95,000/- to Rs.7,04,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Compensation for Amputation
- Permanent Disability Assessment
- Multiplier Method
- Future Loss of Income
- Pain and Suffering
- Medical Expenses
- Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
