Summary
In a motor-accident injury claim by a CRPF Sub-Inspector who was later discharged on medical grounds, the Court held that the High Court erred in deducting his pension from his salary to compute loss of earnings, in denying future prospects, and in preferring the Medical Board's 61.94% disability assessment over the unchallenged 78% assessment of the Tribunal-appointed Commissioner without reasons. Recomputing with the full salary, 30% future prospects, multiplier 14 and 78% disability, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 67,36,084 with 7% simple interest.
Issues
- Whether pension received by the injured claimant after his medical discharge can be deducted from his salary in computing the monthly loss of earnings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- Whether the claimant, aged 43 at the time of the accident, was entitled to an addition for future prospects.
- Whether the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in adopting 50% and 61.94% disability respectively, instead of the 78% assessed by the Tribunal-appointed Commissioner whose evidence went unchallenged.
- What rate of interest the enhanced compensation should carry.
Provisions considered
- Compensation for motor-accident injury (no specific section cited), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Applying the settled methodology under the Act (Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi), the Court computed compensation from the last drawn salary without deducting pension, which is a statutory benefit unrelated to the accident and not a 'pecuniary advantage' liable to deduction (Vimal Kanwar, Helen C. Rebello); added 30% future prospects for a claimant aged 40-50 with a permanent job; applied multiplier 14 for age 43; and applied the 78% disability found by the Commissioner to arrive at the loss of earning capacity. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27)
Held
- Compensation for a salaried injured person is computed on the last drawn salary; pension and similar retirement benefits are statutory rights receivable irrespective of any accident and are not directly relatable to it, so they are not a 'pecuniary advantage' deductible in computing income or loss of earnings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan, following Helen C. Rebello; reiterated in Shashi Sharma and Birender). The High Court therefore could not deduct the monthly pension of Rs. 15,247 from the salary of Rs. 36,231; the full salary must be taken. (¶¶ 19, 21, 26)
- Future prospects cannot be denied in the teeth of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi; for a claimant with a permanent job aged between 40 and 50 the addition is 30% of the salary. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court had awarded anything under this head, and the claimant, aged 43 at the accident and whose promotion did not fructify because of his medical discharge, was entitled to a 30% addition. (¶¶ 18, 22, 26)
- Where the Tribunal-appointed Commissioner, a doctor who had treated the claimant, assessed disability at 78% during the Tribunal proceedings, was cross-examined by the insurer and his evidence remained unshaken, the Tribunal could not reduce the disability to 50% on the ground that there was no material to show complete incapacity or post-discharge employment, nor could the High Court, without assigning any reason, revert to the Medical Board's earlier 61.94% assessment. The 78% disability assessed by the Commissioner was accepted. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The claimant's age of 43 at the time of the accident being undisputed, the multiplier of 14 applied by the Tribunal and the High Court was appropriate. Heads not challenged were left as fixed by the High Court; only monthly income, extent of disability, future prospects and interest were revised, yielding total compensation of Rs. 67,36,084. (¶¶ 25, 27)
- The High Court's reduction of interest from the 9% awarded by the Tribunal to 6% was on the lower side; interest at 7% simple per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realisation would meet the ends of justice. (¶¶ 28, 29)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's common order dated 14.11.2019 modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 67,36,084 with 7% simple interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation; the respondents being jointly and severally liable, the insurer (Respondent No. 2) directed to pay within six weeks with liberty to recover its share, if any, from the vehicle owner (Respondent No. 1) in accordance with law.