SHANE ALAM Vs. METRO ROADLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ("the Act" for short) against the award dated 11.7.2006 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) whereby a sum of `62,409/- was awarded to the appellant as compensation on account of injuries which he sustained in a road accident which took place on 12.03.2004 when he was going on his motorcycle and was struck by a tanker bearing registration number DL-IG-A1816. The appellant allegedly sustained grievous injuries and also disability to the extent of 26% of the left lower limb. The Tribunal though did not believe the disability certificate Ex.PW1/12, but conceded to assess the functional disability of the deceased to the extent of 5%. He assessed the monthly income of the appellant as `2500/-, and assessed the loss of income on account of 5% disability to be `125 per month. The claimant/ appellant being 18 years of age, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and assessed the loss of earning capacity/ disability of `24,000 [125x12x16]. He also noted that the claimant remained jobless for 4-5 months and awarded compensation of `10,000/- on account of loss of earning during the period of treatment. A sum of `15,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering; `909 towards medical expenses, `5,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance; `2500 towards expenses on attendant. All these components made a total sum of `62,409/-. The challenge is made by the appellant/claimant to the awarded sum alleging compensation to be on much lower side. The appellant/ claimant averred that it was on the directions of the Tribunal that his disability as 26% was assessed by GTB Hospital vide certificate Ex.PW1/12. The appellant averred that he being the junk dealer required constant work and the disability affected his working and earning capacity. In view of the fact that the disability was assessed by the hospital on the direction of the Court vide certificate Ex.PW1/12 which was directly sent by the hospital to the Court, there remained no need for formal proof of the said certificate. If the Court had any reservation, it ought to have summoned the doctor from GTB Hospital who had examined the claimant on its directions. There was no fault of the appellant not being able to summon the doctor for proving the disability certificate which was stated to be directly sent by the hospital to the Court. However, the disability of 26% of lower limb could not be taken to be functional disability of the claimant/ appellant. Keeping in view of the nature of the injuries sustained and the nature of business, the disability of 26% of lower limb can be taken to be equivalent to 10% of the whole body and that being so, the functional disability of the appellant/ claimant could be taken to be 10% instead of 5%.

(2.) THE appellant was aged 18 years and was earning `2500/- per month. Though he was not in any stable business, but keeping in view his age and the inflationary trends and rising prices, it cannot be forgotten that with the passage of time, he would have earned more than `2500/- per month had he not received the injuries. It can be estimated that the appellant would have made 50% increase in his income in due course of time and if that being so his monthly income would have been 2500+3750 divided by 2 = 3125 per month. i.e. `37,500/- p.a.. In this view of the matter, the loss of earning on account of functional disability of 10% would be `312.50 or say `315 per month i.e. `3780 per annum.