Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Ashok Bhan
D. K. Jain
Judgment Date: 2007-11-02
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The Court modified the award to include a loss of future income of Rs. 2,59,200 in addition to the amounts already awarded, and directed interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing until realization.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; award enhanced with loss of income of Rs. 2,59,200 and interest at 6% on the enhanced amount

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sunil Kumar

Respondents

Ram Singh Gaud and others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Tara Chandra Sharma (SCLSC)

Counsels for Respondents

• Santosh Paul (for M.J. Paul)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal arises from an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries sustained by Sunil Kumar in a collision between a mini truck and a truck dumper. The appellant, then 29, sustained grievous injuries including a tibial fracture, resulting in 45% permanent disability, and earned Rs. 4,000 per month as a driver. The Tribunal granted Rs. 45,000 for permanent disability, Rs. 21,000 for medical costs, and Rs. 6,000 for pain and mental agony, total Rs. 72,000, with interest at 6%. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court awarded compensation for loss of future earning capacity. It observed that after the tibia fracture the appellant’s ability to drive may be permanently impaired and his earning capacity would be reduced. Based on the appellant’s current income, a 45% disability, 1/3 deduction for expenses, and a multiplier of 18 under Section 163-A, the Court computed a future loss of income of Rs. 2,59,200. The Court thus enhanced the compensation in respect of loss of income, while confirming the earlier sums, and directed that interest accrue on the enhanced amount at 6% from the filing date until realization. The appeal is allowed, and the award modified accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Schedule II to Section 163-AMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Second Schedule to Section 163A

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in not awarding compensation for loss of future earning capacity. Given the 45% permanent disability and the tibial fracture, his ability to drive and earn would be diminished, and the disability would reduce his earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant seeks an enhanced award reflecting loss of future income, computed with current earnings, a 45% disability, appropriate deductions, and an actual multiplier under Section 163-A.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court was proper and that there was no justified basis to add compensation for future loss of earnings beyond what was already awarded; they supported the existing sums and related interest, contending that the evidence does not justify a higher figure.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

I 1 ~[, ] A **B** ~ ..>( ~ F # SUNILKUMAR _v._ RAM SINGH GAUD AND ORS. NOVEMBER 2, 2007 # **[ASHOK BHAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]** -I._ _Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:_ _S.166 and Schedule II to s.163-A-Compensation for loss of_ c _earning due to permanent disability-Collision between two vehiclesDriver of mini truck sustaining grievious injuries resulting in 45% permanent disability-MA CT allowing Rs.45,0001- as compensation for 45% permanent disability, cost of treatment and towards pain and_ D _[mental agony-High Court dismissing appeal ][of ][claimant-HELD: ] Tribunal as well as High Court have not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income-After fracture of tibia, it is doubtful if the appellant can even drive again-Disability suffered by appellant would surely reduce earning capacity-Therefore, appellant is required_ E _[to ][be ][compensated for ][loss ][of ][earning ][due ][to ][irif ][uries ][suffered ][by ][him ] in accident-Taking into consideration present income of appellant as Rs.4,0001- per month minus I/3rd deduction towards miscellaneous expenses, the permanent disability of 45% suffered by him, appellant being 29 years old at the time of accident, and taking multiplier to be 18, total loss of income comes to Rs.2,59,2001- for which appellant_ F _would be entitled in addition to the sum already awarded by the Tribunal-He would be entitled to interest at the same rate i.e. 6% per annum on the enhanced amount as well from the date of filing claim petition till realization._ G CIVIL APPELLATE nJRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5108 of 2007. -'-:-+-' From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2004 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.A. No. 2728 of2004. 876 H SUNIL KUMAR _v._ RAM SINGH GAUD 877 A _-1...._ Tara Chandra Sharma (SCLSC), for the Appellant. Santosh Paul (for M.J. Paul) for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered by ## **ORDER** B 1. Leave granted. 2. Factual background of the case is that on 10th July, 2003, appellant was driving his mini truck No.MP 20 G-7705 towards Bargi ' along with one Ran1esh Prajapati. When the mini truck reached Chulha C Gulhai, a tmck dumper bearing No. MP 18-6392 came from the opposite side, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit the mini truck of the appellant with the result that the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his leg. He suffered three fractures including one at tibia. He was examined by the Medical Board. After exanlining the injuries, Board came to the conclusion that the appellant had suffered 45% pennanent D disability. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident and was working as a driver and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. 3. FIR was lodged. A claim was also filed against the owner of truck dumper as well as the insurance company before the Motor Accident , E Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (for short 'the Act'), _inter alia,_ , stating that in the accident, appellant suffered fracture in his tibia and two other places. Appellant claimed Rs. 8,20,000/- by way of compensation. / 4. Tribunal by its order dated 25th June, 2004 awarded a F compensation ofRs.45,000/- for the 45% pennanent disability suffered · by the appellant; Rs.21,000/- towards the amount spent on the treatment and Rs.6,000/- for physical pain and mental agony suffered by the appellant. Tims, a total sun1 ofRs.72,000/-was awarded as compensation , G along with interest@6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment 5. Being aggrieved, appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which has been dismissed by the impugned ' order. H .... SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. 878 ____, --, _r-_ ~ 1 f A 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that as a result of the impact of injuries suffered by the appellant, the appellant cannot pursue his vocation of driving any longer and the Tribunal as well as the High Court have grossly erred in not awarding any compensation towards the loss of his earning capacity. That, keeping in view the injuries suffered B[by ][him, ][the ][compensation ][awarded ][is ][too ][low. ][Counsel ][appearing ][for ][the ] Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Respondent No.3, has supported the judgment and order passed by the courts below. 7. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard at length. 8. We find substance in the submission put forth by the counsel for c the appellant. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income. After the fracture of tibia, it is doubtful if the appellant can even drive again. Even if he putsues some other vocation, he would not be able to earn as much as he is earning now. The disability suffered by the appellant would surely reduce his D earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant is required to be compensated for the loss of earning due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 9. Taking into consideration the present income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/- per month; and the pem1anent disability of 45% suffered by him, we are of the view that the capacity of the appellant to earn in future E would be reduced by Rs.1,800/- per month approximately. If l/3rd is deducted towards miscellaneous expenses, the loss of income comes to Rs.1,200/- per month which, in tum, comes to Rs.14,400/- per annum. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident. Taking the multiplier to be 18 [as per the Second Schedule to Section 163A of the Act], the F total loss of income comes to Rs.2,59,200/-. E 10. For the reasons stated above, the loss of income is assessed at Rs.2,59,200/-. The appellant would be entitled to tl1e aforesaid amount in addition to the sum already awarded by the Tribunal, which has been upheld by the High Court. The appellant would be entitled to interest at G the same rate, i.e., 6% per annum on the enhanced amount as well from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. ~. ~~ 11. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order passed by the Courts below stands modified to the extent indicated above. H[RP. ] Appeal allowed.