Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 180 (UTT)

Anil Kumar v. Rohtash Singh

2016-04-26

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard learned counsels of either party, it transpires that the accident occurred on 18.08.2005, when the claimant Mr. Anil Kumar was driving the Jeep under the employment of vehicle owner. Such vehicle met an accident causing the fracture in the elbow of one of the Arms of the Driver/claimant. He was 25 years’ of age at the time of accident. So, having remained hospitalized for 19 days’, he was declared to have suffered the injuries to make him 48 percent disabled. He, under Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, chose to file the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which was adjudicated by learned Trial Judge on 11.12.2008, awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,79,694/-. 2. Feeling aggrieved, he has come up before this Court in this appeal. 3. The main contention of learned counsel is that the petition was filed choosing the option, under Section 167 of M.V. Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal but the calculation of the award has been made on the principles and rules, as laid down in the Workmen Compensation Act. So, this finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. 4. I accept this contention of learned counsel and re-calculate the compensation which ought to have been awarded to the claimant Mr. Anil Kumar, as per the norms of Motor Vehicle Act. 5. Undisputedly, on the date of accident, the notional income was Rs.15,000/- per annum but the Tribunal has evaluated such compensation on the notional income of Rs.36,000/- per annum on the basis of a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court reported in 2007 (1) TAC Page 821. Said judgment was rendered by this Court in 2007, considering the inflaming prices/cost of living and un-amended schedule for compensation, as envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act, as also the notional income under such Act. 6. In my view, since the accident had occurred in 2005, hence the notional income was prevailing in such year should have been taken into account, instead of, as enhanced by the judgment of this Court in 2007. This way, if I accept Rs.15,000/- per annum as the notional income and then, its 48 percent comes to the figure Rs.7,200/-. 7. In my view, since the accident had occurred in 2005, hence the notional income was prevailing in such year should have been taken into account, instead of, as enhanced by the judgment of this Court in 2007. This way, if I accept Rs.15,000/- per annum as the notional income and then, its 48 percent comes to the figure Rs.7,200/-. 7. As per Sarla Verma Case, the multiplier of “17” should have been applied to the youth of 30 years and such age has been found by the Tribunal on the basis of number of medical certificates, including the one, which advert his disablement. So, if multiplier of “17” is applied, then the amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,22,400/-. Adding Rs.37,205/- towards the expenses, incurred by him to meet out the medical expenses, then amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,59,605/-. 8. I award Rupees Fifty Thousand more to the claimant Mr. Anil Kumar towards the mental and physical pain, which he suffered during the course of his treatment as well as on the score with such disablement, he will not able to drive the commercial vehicle. So, this way, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,09,605/-. 9. I award six percent simple interest per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition. 10. This appeal is allowed and the award, as granted by learned Tribunal, is modified in the above terms. 11. The Insurance Company shall deposit the difference of the earlier amount and the amount, so awarded by this Court, within six weeks along with six percent simple interest, which difference could have earned. The interest will be exigible only on the difference amount.