MOHAN SONI VS RAM AVTAR TOMAR & ORS

MOHAN SONI VS RAM AVTAR TOMAR & ORS

By – Aparajita Patel

In the Supreme Court of India

NAME OF THE CASEMOHAN SONI V. RAM AVTAR TOMAR & ORS
DATE10 JANUARY, 2012
CITATIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2012
APPELLANTMOHAN SONI
RESPONDENTRAM AVTAR TOMAR
BENCH/ JUDGEAFTAB ALAM, R.M. LODHA
STATUTES/ CONSTITUTIONS INVOLVED MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, COMPENSATION ACT, 1923
IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ ARTICLESSECTION 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, SCHEDULE 1 OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923.

ABSTRACT:

The High Court and the Tribunal have ruled that the compensation for the loss of the appellant’s earning capacity as a result of the amputation of his left leg was only 50%. We find it extremely difficult to uphold the decision of the High Court based on the finding that the victim could still do some work sitting down such as selling vegetables.  For that reason, the party arguing for a reduced amount of compensation must plead and establish that the claimant was afforded some legal protection.

INTRODUCTION:

In this case the discussion about how the appellant, Mohon Soni, age 50 (during the time of the accident) got into an accident with a tanker which resulted in 2 surgeries and later resulted in the amputation of his left leg below the knee.

The appellant, in this case, files an application with the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Gwalior, (Madhya Pradesh), requesting compensation for his injuries under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Afterwards, the appellant chose to challenge the tribunal by going to the Court to complain about the low compensation amount awarded to him by the Tribunal and the High Court.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

The appellant, who was injured in an accident, has petitioned this Court to complain about the low amount of compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal and the High Court. The appellant formerly worked as a cart puller. On December 17, 2003, at about 3 p.m., he was hauling some products on a four-wheel cart when he was hit by a tanker being driven recklessly and negligently. The appellant’s left leg was crushed in the collision. The X-Ray report revealed that the left leg had several fractures. He was admitted to a hospital and had two procedures between December 17, 2003, and January 3, 2004, with his left leg amputated below the knee. He filed an application with the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Gwalior, (M.P.), seeking compensation for his injuries under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He stated before the Tribunal that he was 50 years old at the time of the accident and that his monthly wage as a cart puller was Rs.3,300/-. As a result of his leg amputation, he was no longer able to walk without assistance, rendering him unable to work and earn a living.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

  • The appellant was making a living with cart handles.
  • December 17, 2003, around 3pm. Tired of the tanker being driven by negligence in a hurry, he was carrying some goods from a four wheel cart.
  • Accident Appeals Person’s left foot was crushed.
  • X-ray report showed multiple fractures in the left leg.
  • He was admitted to the hospital and underwent two surgeries between December 17, 2003, and January 3, 2004, the last time his left foot was amputated below the knee.
  • He filed an application before the Second Additional Automobile Accident Claims Tribunal (MP) claiming compensation for his injuries under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988.
  • Before the court, he said that he was 50 years old at the time of the accident and that his monthly income from a cart handle was Rs.3,300.
  • As a result of amputation of his leg, he is no longer able to walk without support, and therefore unable to work and earn a living. 
  • The referee found and maintained that the accident occurred as a result of negligence and careless driving by the tanker driver.
  • It also claimed that the person who appealed at the time of the accident was 55 years old and his monthly income was Rs.2,400, not the Rs.3,300 he claimed.
  • As for the degree of disability, the court stated that his disability was 60%, referring to the disability identification card given to the appeal.
  • The court also observed that when the plaintiff appeared in court, it was evident that his left leg had been amputated below the knee. Although the appellant’s disability card indicated that his degree of disability was 60%, the Court, referring to Schedule 1 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1923, held that the The appellant’s disability rate cannot be considered to be greater than 50%.
  • Finding that the age of the appellant at the time of the accident was 55, the Court applied a multiplier of 11 and based on the result the appellant’s monthly income of Rs 2,400/and the degree of disability his is 50%, setting the number 1,58,400 rupees/ as compensation for future loss of income.
  • In addition, the Court awarded Appellant Rs 30,000/ for mental and physical suffering due to permanent disability and additional Rs 15,000/ for medical expenses and special diet.
  • Accordingly, the Court, by ruling of 31 July 2004, declared that the appellant is entitled to receive total compensation of Rs 2,03,400 as well as interest of 9% per annum from the date of application. of the claim on 9 January 2004 up to the date of payment.

ISSUE RAISED BEFORE COURT:

The appellant, a victim of a car accident, has come to this Court to complain about the low compensation amount awarded to him by the Tribunal and the High Court.

ARGUMENTS FROM APPELLANT SIDE:

  • The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Appeal No.844 of 2004 with the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, challenging the Tribunal’s decision.
  • The issue was referred to Lok Adalat in the High Court, where the Insurance Company consented to increase the amount of compensation.
  • However, it appears that the dispute was unable to be resolved in the Lok Adalat, and the appeal was finally heard and decided on the merits by the High Court.
  • The High Court, in its decision and order dated April 1, 2009, merely increased the appellant’s monthly income from Rs.2,400/- to Rs.3,000/-, resulting in a compensation of Rs.1,98,000/- for the loss of future earnings.

ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS SIDE:

  • The collision occurred as a result of the tanker driver’s careless and rash driving, according to the Tribunal. It went on to say that the appellant was 55 years old at the time of the accident, and that his monthly salary was Rs.2,400/-, not Rs.3,300/- as he claimed.
  • When it came to the level of the appellant’s handicap, the Tribunal resorted to the appellant’s disabled-person identity card, which stated that his disability was 60 percent.
  • When the appellant came in court, it was clear that his left leg had been amputated below the knee, according to the Tribunal.
  • Despite the fact that the appellant’s disabled-person card indicated a 60% disability, the Tribunal decided that the appellant’s disability could not exceed 50% under Schedule 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

RELATED PROVISIONS:

Section 166 Of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

Application for compensation:

  1. A claim for compensation emerging from an accident of the type described in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be filed if the following conditions are met:
    1. by the person who has sustained the injury; or
    1. by the owner of the property; or
    1.  where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
    1. by any agency lawfully authorised by the injured person or all or any of the deceased’s legal representatives, as the case may be:

Where all of the deceased’s legal representatives have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all of the deceased’s legal representatives, and those who have not joined shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. 1[(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the claimant’s option, to the Claims Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over the area where the accident took place, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the appellant resides or conducts business, or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in the following format and contain the following information: Provided, however, that if no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in the application, a supplementary statement to that effect must be included right before the applicant’s signature.]

Schedule 1 Of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923:

“Schedule 1, Part 2 (amputation cases, lower limbs)

Serial No.Description of injuryPercentage of loss of earning capacity
19Amputation below middle thigh to 8.89 cms. below knee60
20Amputation below the knee with stump exceeding 8.89 cms. but not exceeding 12.70 cms.50
21Amputation below the knee with stump exceeding 12.70 cms.50

“

JUDGEMENTS:

The appellant, who was injured in a car accident, has petitioned this Court to complain about the low level of compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal and the High Court. The court believes that both the Tribunal and the High Court made errors in pegging the appellant’s disability to 50% with reference to Schedule 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, after hearing counsel for the parties and reviewing the materials on record. Any physical disability resulting from an accident must be considered in terms of the sort of work performed by the person suffering the disability in the context of prospective earnings loss.  This is the fundamental concept, and once understood, it is evident that the same injury or loss can affect two people in quite different ways.  Consider the situation of a marginal farmer who does all of his own agriculture and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the driver of a cycle-rickshaw, which is one of the most common modes of transportation in hundreds of tiny towns across the country. In terms of earning potential, losing one of the legs, whether to a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller, would be the end of the road. The loss of a leg, on the other hand, may not have the same impact on someone who works at a desk in an office. The loss of a leg (or any limb) is bound to have painful repercussions on a person’s personal, familial, and social life, but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in an office would not interfere with his work/earning capabilities to the same extent as a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller. This Court reviewed the issue of loss of earning capacity resulting from the amputation of one of a tanker driver’s legs in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others, (2008) 8 SCC 518. In that case, a tanker driver was involved in a car accident and had his right leg amputated up to the knee joint as a result of his injuries. He filed a claim in accordance with the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. In view of the foregoing rulings, the court finds it incredibly difficult to accept the High Court and Tribunal’s decisions based on the determination that the appellant’s earning potential was only reduced by 50% as a result of the amputation of his left leg. As previously stated, the appellant formerly worked as a cart puller. The Tribunal determined that he was 55 years old at the time of the accident. It would be impossible for the appellant to obtain work at that age. According to the pattern of cross-examination, an attempt was made to suggest that despite the loss of one leg, the appellant could still do some job sitting down. However, such undetermined circumstances should not be taken into account when calculating compensation for a victim of a motor vehicle accident who suffers some major permanent handicap as a result of the loss of a limb or other injury.  According to the court, the appellant’s loss of earning potential could be as high as 100%, but in no instance would it be less than 90%. As a result, the court finds and hold that compensatory damages for the loss of the appellant’s future wages must be calculated on that basis. On that basis, the compensation amount would be Rs.3,56,400/-, and the total amount would be Rs.4,01,400/- after adding a payment of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. From the date of submitting the claim petition until the date of payment, the increased compensation amount would accrue interest at a rate of 9% per year. The additional compensation, plus interest, shall be provided to the appellant as soon as possible, but no later than three months from now.

CONCLUSION:

As per the above judgement, the court believes that both the Tribunal and the High Court made errors in tracking the appellant’s disability to 50% with reference to Schedule 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, after hearing counsel for the parties and reviewing the materials on record.  According to the court, the appellant’s loss of earning potential could be as high as 100%, but in no instance would it be less than 90%. As a result, the court finds and hold that compensatory damages for the loss of the appellant’s future wages must be calculated on that basis. On that basis, the compensation amount would be Rs.3,56,400/-, and the total amount would be Rs.4,01,400/- after adding a payment of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. From the date of submitting the claim petition until the date of payment, the increased compensation amount would accrue interest at a rate of 9% per year. The additional compensation, plus interest, shall be provided to the appellant as soon as possible, but no later than three months from now.

Leave a Reply