SUPREME COURT RULE ON ADDITION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS IN PERMANENT DISABLEMENT CASES IN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

SUPREME COURT RULE ON ADDITION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS IN PERMANENT DISABLEMENT CASES IN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

  Whether addition of future prospects is applicable to personal disablement cases in motor vehicle accident cases? The answer is YES.

This aspect has been clearly explained in Pappu deo yadav    VS   Naresh kumar & others  in   2020(2) TNMAC 536 (SC)

The brief of the case is as follows:

On 18.5.2012, the appellant was injured in a motor accident while travelling to Hapur as a passenger in a bus, having paid the requisite fare. At about 1.30 pm, when the bus reached village sadikpur, PS-Hafizpur, Hapur, uttar Pradesh, the driver of the offending bus (1^st respondent) sought to overtake the bus in which the appellant was travelling, from the wrong side, the zipped the appellants bus, scratched it. This rash and negligent act caused a dent in the bus, where the appellant was seated, as a result of which he suffered injuries. The appellant was removed to Dr.khan’s Rehan hospital and thereafter, AIIMS trauma centre. The appellant claimed compensation impleading the owner, the driver of the vehicle, and the insurer. During the course of proceedings before the motor accident claims tribunal, he applied for ascertainment of his disability. Disability report showed that he suffered 89% disability in relation to his right upper limb, which had to be amputated. The report also went on to say the condition was non – progressive, not likely to improve. Reassesment is not recommended. A first information report regarding the accident was registered.

The appellant at that time was unmarried, was working as a data entry operator/typist at Tis hazari courts. Prior to the injury, he earned an amount of Rs.12,000 per month. He had applied for grant of compensation under sections 166 & 140 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 claiming a sum of Rs.50 lakhs against the respondents.

The tribunal awarded compensation in the following terms:

 

 

1.	Compensation for medical expenses	Rs.11,000
2.	Compensation for pain and suferings	Rs.30,000
3.	Compensation for special diet, attendant and  Conveyance charges	Rs.30,000/
4.	Loss of future earning capacity / income	Rs.11,66,400/
5.	Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life	Rs.15,000/
6.	Compensation for disfigurement	Rs.25,000/
7.	Loss of income during treatment	Rs.48,000/
8.	Future medical expenses	Rs.1,00,000/
	Total	Rs.14,25,400/

 

 

While assessing loss of earning capacity, the tribunal took the appellants income to be Rs.8,000. Pm. And added 50% towards future prospects. At the time of accident the petitioner was aged  only 20 years of age. Therefore a multiplier of 18 was applied. The physical disability was assessed to be 45% by the tribunal. The high court to which the claimant appealed (and the insurer cross appealed), revised this head of compensation by doing away with the addition of 50% towards future prospects, and reassessed the compensation for loss of earning capacity as Rs.7,77,600 (8000 x 12 x 45% x 18). The total compensation was reassessed by the high court to be Rs. 14,36,600, after enhancing the   compensation for disfigurement, diet, attendant and conveyance, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, and pain and sufferings. In reducing the amount awarded for loss of future prospects, the high court noticed supreme court’s judgment in National insurance co. ltd. VS pranay sethi & ors. And Jagdish Vs mohan & others.

The appellant argues that that the impugned judgment is in material error, in misreading the judgment in pranay sethi & ors., which was later followed in jagdish by a three judge bench, which had ruled that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those, who have a permanent job and would extend to self employed individuals, and in case of self employed persons an addition of 40% of established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of accident was below 40 years. It was urged that the decision in Anant s/o sideshwar durke Vs pratap s/o Zhamnnappa lamzane & another 2018 (9) SCC 450, relied on by the high court did not assess future prospects. However that per se did not preclude claims by persons incurring permanent disablement as a consequence of motor vehicle accident, from seeking such heads of compensation. It urged that high court misread and created a distinct category of cases, where addition in income towards “future prospects” can only be given in case of death, and not for injury.

Counsel for the insurer, who contested the appeal, urged the court not to interfere with the impugned judgment and stated that the assessment of compensation was made by the high court in conformity with this court’s decision. It was high lightened that permanent disability of loss of one arm cannot lead to loss of earning capacity of up to 90% and consequently the assessment of compensation on the head of loss of earning capacity was correctly fixed at 45%.

Two question arise here for consideration. One is Whether in case of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident , the claimant can seek apart from compensation for future prospects too.  And two, the extend of disability. On the first question, the high court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that pranay sethi involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However it went wrong  in saying that later, the three judge bench decision in jagdish, was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there is no justification in this. Such a narrow reading of pranay sethi is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases – and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of victim’s death.

Court should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities and compensation under various heads. And, Disabilty is assessed at 65% and 40%of the income has been added towards future prospects.