Name: Erudhaya Priya Vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.
Date of Judgement: July 27, 2020
Petitioner: Erudhaya Priya
Respondent: State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.
Citation: VS-2020-SC-22.
Bench:
- Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
- Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi
- Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose
Relevant Cases:
- National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others
- Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
Facts:
1. The Petitioner was travelling from Chennai to Bangalore in a bus which was owned by the Respondent State Corporation.
2. The bus on Bangalore National Highway ran into a lorry. Due to these collision multiple injuries to several passengers including the Appellant were occurred, and caused death of the bus conductor.
3. Petitioner was rushed to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore where she was admitted for 8 months. The injuries to the petitioner were grievous in her arms and legs due to which she suffered a disability of 31.1% of the whole body.
4. The Petitioner filled a complaint in Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. As she was 23 years old, multiplier of 17 was applied on her monthly salary as a software engineer and the compensation was calculated for loss of earning power to Rs. 9, 27, 424/. The compensation also included various heads of medical expenses, physiotherapy, loss of comfort and amenities, mental agony, and pain and suffering. The total amount of the compensation by the MACT was of Rs. 35, 24, 288/- payable by the Respondent State Corporation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
6. The Respondent filed an appeal against this order. The High Court, verifying the findings of negligence of the bus driver, reduced the compensation to Rs. 25, 00, 000/- on the ground that the multiplier method for calculating loss of earning power has been wrongly applied.
7. The Petitioner claimed before this Court that she is entitled to more compensation than what was granted by the MACT and has calculated the same as Rs. 41, 69, 831/- under various heads along with claiming a revised interest rate @ 12% per annum.
Issue involved:
- What would be the exact amount of compensation that Petitioner can claim?
Rationale:
1. The extended multiplier is on the basis of age of the petitioner (23 years) as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others. In the age group of 15- 25 years, the multiplier has to be ‘18’ considering the disability.
2. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability due to an accident is entitled to compensation. The award of compensation must cover the following aspects:
(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;
(ii) Loss of income including future income;
(iii) The inability of the victim to lead normal life;
(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required.
3. The calculation of compensation by the petitioner as follows:-
Loss of earning power (14648×12×18×31.1/100) = Rs 9, 81, 978.76
Towards future aspects (50% ADDITION) = Rs 4, 90, 989
Medical expenses including = Rs 18, 46, 864
Loss of Matrimonial Aspects = Rs 5, 00, 000
Loss of Comfort and Mental Agony = Rs 1, 50, 000
Pain and suffering = Rs 2, 00, 000
TOTAL = Rs 41, 69, 831
Obiter Dicta:
The court gives its judgement according to Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which states that:-
1. An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made—
(a) By the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) By the owner of the property;
(c) Where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) By any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
2. Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides.
Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.
Judgement:
The Petitioner would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 41, 69, 831/- as claimed along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. Appeals are, allowed.
Conclusion:
This case revolves around the claim of compensation as per the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by a victim of road accident that happened on Banglore National highway.
The petitioner suffered multiple injuries/fractures that caused her disability of 31.1% of her whole body.
The court as per it’s precedents and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act allowed the appeal of Petitioner and ordered the Respondent corporation to award her sum total of Rs 41, 69, 831/- as compensation.
Drafted By: Param Mansinghka
Edited By: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider
Published On: February 14, 2022 at 23:00 IST