Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rameshbhai Mangalbhai Machhi, a pedestrian aged about 30 years, was hit by a Piyaggio Chhakda (auto rickshaw) on 05.12.2010 while walking on the roadside after a religious ceremony. He sustained serious injuries including fracture. A criminal complaint was registered. He filed MAC Petition No.592 of 2011 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra, seeking compensation. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim, awarding Rs. 1,50,000 with interest at 9% per annum. Dissatisfied, the claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court heard both sides. The main issues were the denial of prospective income, incorrect multiplier, and inadequate compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in not adding prospective income and in applying multiplier 14 instead of 18. The respondent insurance company supported the award. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the claimant had sustained permanent disability of 15% as per the disability certificate. The Court held that even for self-employed persons, prospective income should be added at 40% for age below 40 years as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. The multiplier was corrected to 18 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC. The compensation for pain and suffering was enhanced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000, and for loss of amenities from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 25,000. Medical expenses of Rs. 25,000 were upheld. The total compensation was recalculated as Rs. 2,64,800, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Permanent Disability - Prospective Income - Self-Employed Victim - The Tribunal erred in not granting prospective income for a self-employed claimant with permanent disability, contrary to settled law. The High Court held that even for self-employed persons, prospective income should be added at 40% for age below 40 years. (Paras 5-6) B) Motor Accident Compensation - Multiplier - Selection Based on Age - The Tribunal applied multiplier of 14 instead of 18 for a 30-year-old claimant. The High Court corrected it to 18 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC. (Para 6) C) Motor Accident Compensation - Pain and Suffering - Loss of Amenities - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities, which were enhanced to Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 25,000 respectively considering the nature of injuries. (Para 7) D) Motor Accident Compensation - Medical Expenses - Reimbursement - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000 for medical expenses, which was upheld as reasonable. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in not granting prospective income and in applying an incorrect multiplier for computing compensation for permanent disability in a motor accident claim.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 2,64,800 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Compensation for permanent disability
- Prospective income for self-employed
- Multiplier selection based on age
- Pain and suffering
- Loss of amenities
- Medical expenses
- Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
