SUNIL KUMAR Vs. RAMVEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is for enhancement for claim of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal was in error in finding contributory negligence against the petitioner who was a boy aged 10 years. It is further contended that he had lost one middle toe of the right foot. It was surgically amputated and the doctor had assessed the loss to be 7%. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that although the medical expenses had been incurred to the extent of about Rs.2.5 lacs, the Tribunal has provided for compensation at Rs.1,60,000/ - only. The Court provided for an additional amount of Rs.20,000/ - towards pain and suffering and assessed the total loss to be Rs.1,80,000/ -. However, finding that he was guilty of contributory negligence it had made a 50% deduction and awarded Rs.90,000/ - only.

(2.) COUNSEL also argues that the Court has not provided for the attendant charges, special diet and transportation. These are invariably pecuniary heads for which proof has to be given and I find no evidence therefor. However, I take note of the fact that he had been admitted in the hospital from 19.11.2006 to 25.11.2006 and therefore there ought to be provision for special diet and attendant charges and I will also allow for transportation expenses There ought to be a provision also for the loss of amenities of life for the disability resulting in amputation of toe and I will provide for Rs.5,000/ - towards the same. A loss of toe is a schedule injury and I will assume that the amputation was metatarsal phalengeal which allows for maximum percentage of 3%. I would take also that to result in loss of earning capacity taking a notional income for a child at Rs.15,000/ -. I will apply a 3% loss as resulting in Rs.450/ - annually. I apply a multiplier of 16 and take the loss to be Rs.7200/ -. I tabulate hereunder the total compensation payable: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_265_ACJ1_2014.htm</FRM>

(3.) COUNSEL for the Insurance Company argues that there had been no valid permit or fitness certificate. These are no defences which shall be allowed for exclusion of liability under the terms of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The user of the vehicle against the terms of permit under Section 66 will give rise to other consequences of cancellation of permit but shall not avail to the insurer a right to be exonerated, unless there are any specific exclusions under the terms of policy. The Court's finding that the liability shall be only on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is erroneous. The liability shall be therefore borne by the Insurance Company.