Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chhagangiri Shankargiri Goswami, was a cleaner in a truck (No. GJ-12-T-7845) traveling from Udaipur to Morbi. On the day of the accident, the truck was driven rashly and negligently at excessive speed, dashing against a rock, causing grievous injuries to the appellant. He filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 197 of 2004 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kachchh at Bhuj, seeking compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/-. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs. 76,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court heard Mr. Hemal Shah for the appellant; respondents were served but none appeared. The court noted that the appeal was only on quantum, as the incident and vehicle involvement were not disputed. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospective income (25% for a 46-year-old), awarded meager amounts for pain and suffering (Rs. 10,000/-) and special diet/attendant charges (Rs. 5,000/-), and did not properly assess income, which should be based on minimum wages (Rs. 3,500/- per month). The court, relying on Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012(1) TAC 1 (SC)), held that in the absence of proof of income, minimum wages should be considered. The court assessed the appellant's income at Rs. 3,000/- per month (minimum wage), added 25% future prospects (Rs. 750/-), making it Rs. 3,750/- per month. Applying a multiplier of 13 (age 46) and 10% disability (as per disability certificate at Exh. 39 and 42), the loss of future income was calculated as Rs. 58,500/-. The court enhanced pain and suffering to Rs. 50,000/-, special diet and attendant charges to Rs. 25,000/-, and awarded Rs. 5,000/- for medical bills (as per Exh. 35). The total compensation was recalculated as Rs. 1,38,500/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal's award was modified accordingly, and the appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Quantum of Compensation - Future Prospective Income - The Tribunal erred in not adding 25% future prospects to the claimant's income as per the law laid down in Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Held that for a 46-year-old claimant, 25% future prospects must be added to the assessed income (Paras 4, 6). B) Motor Accident Compensation - Assessment of Income - Minimum Wages - In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal should consider the prevalent minimum wages at the time of the accident - Held that the claimant's income should be assessed at Rs.3,500/- per month based on minimum wage (Paras 4, 6). C) Motor Accident Compensation - Pain and Suffering - Inadequate Award - The Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- for pain, shock and suffering which is meager - Held that the amount is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- (Para 7). D) Motor Accident Compensation - Special Diet and Attendant Charges - Inadequate Award - The Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- for special diet and attendant charges - Held that the amount is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering future prospective income and in awarding meager compensation under various heads for injuries sustained in a motor accident.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,38,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount with interest.
Law Points
- Future prospective income
- Minimum wage assessment
- Pain and suffering compensation
- Special diet and attendant charges
- Motor Vehicles Act Section 173
