Anoop Maheshwari VS Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) , S.168— Motor accident – Claim for compensation – Determination of disability – Disability certificate indicated that disability had resulted from amputation of one leg and a portion of pelvic bone on same side – Disability to be assessed for purpose of awarding compensation arising from a motor accident is functional disability which reduces earning capacity of claimant and not strictly medical disability – Claimant was running a business, and had already been fitted with a prosthetic limb to ensure his mobility – Order of High Court holding disability to be 50% for purpose of computing loss of income as relatable to loss of earning capacity was correct – Functional disability assessed at 50% was reasonable.
(B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) , S.168— Motor accident – Claim for compensation – Determination of income – Tribunal had erred in refusing to adopt income as per income tax returns merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures – Income tax returns showed total gross income as Rs.1,96,000/- out of which tax of Rs.4,641/- was to be deducted -Income would have to be assessed at Rs.1,91,000/-.
(C) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) , S.168— Motor accident – Claim for compensation – Loss of future prospects- Though claimant had suffered functional disability which was determined to be 50%, he had been fitted with a prosthetic leg which ensured his mobility and continuance of business – 40% enhancement in annual income on account of future prospects was improper, especially in view of 50% disability having been reckoned for the purpose of loss of earning capacity and claimant being able to continue his business.
(D) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) , S.168— Motor accident – Claim for compensation – Determination of medical expenses – Though invoices were produced for Rs.12,54,985/-, tribunal awarded only Rs.3,39,926/-, which was held to be valid on verification by insurance company – Whether claimant participated or was heard in verification or whether it was conducted validly on orders of tribunal, was not clear – High Court enhanced claim for medical expenses to Rs.8 lakhs without any reasoning – Entire medical expenses claimed for which invoices were produced, will have to be paid to claimant – Rs.1 lakh awarded by High Court for pain, shock and suffering and Rs.2 lakhs for loss of amenities was proper – Rs.1 lakh awarded by Tribunal for attendant expenses, Rs.4,70,805/- for the purchase of prosthetic leg based on the vouchers produced which were not reckoned by High Court, were restored – Rs.10 lakh were awarded for future expenses for continued use of prosthetic limb and medical expenses arising therefrom.
(E) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) , S.168— Motor accident – Compensation for – Enhancement of – Income of injured claimant was assessed on the basis of income tax returns – Multiplier of 18 was correct – Disability of 50% as determined by High Court was proper – Medical expenses awarded by High Court were enhanced – Compensation awarded by High Court for pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities was proper – Compensation awarded by Tribunal for attendant expenses and purchase of prosthetic leg was not reckoned by High Court – Both these amounts were restored and awarded to claimant – Compensation was awarded for future medical expenses and servicing of prosthetic limb/purchase of accessories of artificial limb – Total compensation awarded by High Court was enhanced accordingly.
Judgment of High Court-Reversed(Para12)
