Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Minaben Karsanbhai Patel, was a passenger in a Chevrolet Spark car driven by her husband on 11.06.2016. The husband lost control and collided with a rickshaw coming from the opposite direction, causing grievous injuries including a fracture to the appellant. She filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition No.444 of 2017 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kheda at Nadiad, seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs.4,00,000/-. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in assessing her income at Rs.5,000/- per month on notional basis instead of Rs.20,000/- per month as claimed, and failed to award future prospective income. She also contended that the amounts awarded under the heads of pain, shock and suffering (Rs.30,000/-) and special diet and attendant charges (Rs.10,000/-) were meager. The respondent insurance company opposed the appeal, submitting that the compensation was just and proper. The High Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, held that the Tribunal's notional income assessment was reasonable as the appellant did not produce evidence of actual income. The Court also found that no future prospects could be added as there was no proof of permanent disability or loss of earning capacity. However, the Court enhanced the compensation under non-pecuniary heads: pain, shock and suffering from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, and special diet and attendant charges from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The total compensation was thus increased from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.4,30,000/-. The appeal was partly allowed with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Notional Income - Assessment of Income - The Tribunal assessed the income of the injured claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month on notional basis in absence of proof of actual income. The High Court upheld this assessment as reasonable, noting that the claimant failed to produce evidence of earning Rs.20,000/- per month. (Para 6) B) Motor Accident Compensation - Future Prospective Income - Entitlement - The Tribunal did not award any amount towards future prospective income. The High Court held that in cases of permanent disability, future prospects should be considered. However, since the claimant did not prove permanent disability or loss of earning capacity, no addition for future prospects was warranted. (Para 6) C) Motor Accident Compensation - Non-Pecuniary Damages - Pain, Shock and Suffering - The Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- under this head. The High Court enhanced it to Rs.50,000/- considering the grievous injuries including fracture and the period of treatment. (Para 6) D) Motor Accident Compensation - Special Diet and Attendant Charges - The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- under this head. The High Court enhanced it to Rs.20,000/- considering the need for nutritious food and assistance during recovery. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the injured claimant on notional basis and in not awarding future prospective income, and whether the compensation under non-pecuniary heads was inadequate.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Compensation enhanced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.4,30,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Notional income assessment
- future prospective income
- non-pecuniary damages
- pain and suffering
- special diet and attendant charges
