Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in MVC No.653/2010. The claimant was injured while repairing a tipper lorry when the driver started the vehicle without signal, causing a jack to contact an electric wire and give the claimant an electric shock. The claimant sustained grievous burn injuries resulting in amputation of the left arm above the elbow and reduced functionality of the right hand. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs.11,16,345 with interest at 6% p.a. The claimant appealed seeking enhancement, contending that functional disability should be 100% and compensation for loss of amenities and laid-up period was inadequate. The respondent-insurer argued that the doctor assessed permanent disability at 54% and the Tribunal correctly assessed functional disability at 70%. The High Court, after hearing both sides, examined the point whether enhanced compensation was warranted. The Court referred to the three-step test in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited to determine functional disability. It noted that the claimant could not use his right hand normally due to restricted movement, though not 100% disabled. Considering the amputation and hand impairment, the Court reassessed functional disability at 75% as against 70%. Taking notional income of Rs.5,000/- and multiplier of 15 for the 36-year-old claimant, it recalculated loss of future earnings at Rs.6,75,000/-. It also enhanced loss of amenities from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and awarded Rs.20,000/- for loss of income during laid-up period. The compensation under other heads was maintained. The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the award to Rs.12,44,345 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Assessment of Functional Disability - Three-step test for effect on earning capacity - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166, 168 - Court relied on Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014 ACJ 627) which summarized three steps: (i) ascertain activities claimant can and cannot do; (ii) ascertain avocation, profession, nature of work and age; (iii) find whether totally disabled, or can still carry on previous activities, or restricted but can do lesser scale work. Held that the Tribunal must apply these steps to determine functional disability (Paras 15-16). B) Motor Accident Compensation - Assessment of Functional Disability - Amputation and reduced hand movement - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166, 168 - Left arm amputated above elbow, right hand had restricted movement with 10% restriction in arc of movement of right wrist and tenderness over right hand and finger joints as per medical evidence. Tribunal assessed 70% functional disability; Court enhanced to 75% considering claimant cannot work with right hand like a normal person, impacting his ability to work as a mechanic. Held that functional disability is 75% (Paras 16-17). C) Motor Accident Compensation - Loss of Future Income - Notional income and multiplier - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166, 168 - Accident occurred in 2009, notional income taken as Rs.5,000/-; claimant aged 36, multiplier of 15 applicable. Applying 75% functional disability, loss of future earnings calculated as Rs.5,000 x 12 x 15 x 75% = Rs.6,75,000/- as against Rs.5,67,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Held that claimant entitled to enhanced amount under this head (Para 17). D) Motor Accident Compensation - Loss of Amenities of Life - Enhancement due to amputation and hand impairment - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166, 168 - Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/-; Court increased to Rs.60,000/- considering loss of left arm and reduced function of right hand, inability to stretch, rotate or lift objects, essential for a mechanic. Held that compensation for loss of amenities enhanced (Para 18). E) Motor Accident Compensation - Loss of Income during Laid-Up Period - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166, 168 - Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of earning during treatment and rest period. Claimant compelled to take rest for about four months. Court awarded Rs.20,000/- under this head. Held that claimant entitled to compensation for laid-up period (Para 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-injured is entitled to enhancement of compensation on account of improper assessment of functional disability and other heads
Final Decision
Appeal allowed in part. Impugned award modified: total compensation enhanced to Rs.12,44,345 with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till realization. Insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount within six weeks.
Law Points
- functional disability assessment
- three-step test for effect on earning capacity
- notional income
- multiplier
- loss of future income
- loss of amenities
- compensation for laid-up period
