Case Note & Summary
The appellant-claimant, Balakrishna, filed an appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 17.02.2012 passed by the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC No.8965/2010, which dismissed his claim petition for compensation. The claimant sustained grievous injuries, including eight fractures, in a road traffic accident that occurred on 07.11.2010 at 3.00 p.m. near Aadiganahalli cross, Bangalore-Bagepalli road, when a car bearing registration No.TN-02-AK-6584, driven rashly and negligently, dashed his motorcycle. The claimant was an employee working in a factory and contributed Rs.122 per month as ESI contribution. He suffered permanent disability of 27% to the whole body as per the evidence of doctor-PW2. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the assumption that the claimant might have been a coolie and failed to consider the ESI contribution as proof of income and employment. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim without considering the ESI evidence and medical evidence regarding disability. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to assess compensation afresh after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence. The court also directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation for Injuries - Assessment of Income - ESI Contribution as Proof - The claimant, an employee, contributed Rs.122 per month to ESI, which indicates employment and income - The Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim on assumption that claimant might have been a coolie without considering ESI evidence - Held that ESI contribution is a relevant factor to determine income and employment status (Paras 2-4). B) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation for Injuries - Permanent Disability - Medical Evidence - The claimant sustained eight fractures and 27% permanent disability to whole body as per doctor's evidence (PW2) - The Tribunal failed to consider this evidence - Held that the Tribunal ought to have assessed compensation based on medical evidence (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition for compensation on the ground that the claimant failed to prove his income and disability, and whether the claimant is entitled to compensation.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 17.02.2012 passed in MVC No.8965/2010 by the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal is directed to give opportunity to both parties to lead evidence and assess compensation afresh, and dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Compensation for injuries
- Assessment of income
- Permanent disability
- ESI contribution as proof of income
