Motor accident claims — Evidence — FIR and charge-sheet — Evidentiary value. Crime records such as FIR and charge-sheet, prepared in the regular discharge of official duties, coupled with the testimony of the injured eyewitness, are sufficient to establish negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in claim proceedings. (Paras 15(i)–(iii))

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166, 168 — Determination of “just compensation” — Scope of appellate interference.
In an appeal against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the High Court, being the last Court of fact, is duty-bound to reassess evidence and determine whether the compensation awarded is just and adequate, and may enhance or reduce the award where the Tribunal has failed to consider relevant heads or applied incorrect principles.
(Paras 12, 13, 14, 37)

Motor accident claims — Standard of proof — Negligence — Preponderance of probability.
In proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. The claimant is only required to establish negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, having regard to the summary nature of enquiry and the social-welfare character of the legislation.
(Paras 15(v), 15(vi), 15(vii))

Motor accident claims — Evidence — FIR and charge-sheet — Evidentiary value.
Crime records such as FIR and charge-sheet, prepared in the regular discharge of official duties, coupled with the testimony of the injured eyewitness, are sufficient to establish negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in claim proceedings.
(Paras 15(i)–(iii))

Motor accident claims — Permanent disability — Functional disability — Loss of earning capacity — Distinction.
Permanent physical disability is not synonymous with loss of earning capacity. Even where the claimant continues in service and there is no immediate reduction in income, compensation for permanent disability cannot be denied if the disability results in restriction of day-to-day activities, inconvenience, and recurring extra expenditure throughout life.
(Paras 27–33)

Motor accident claims — Permanent disability — Public employment — Continuation in service — Effect.
Mere continuation of employment or absence of reduction in salary does not disentitle a claimant from compensation under the head of permanent disability. The Court must consider the long-term impact of disability beyond office hours, including loss of amenities and increased expenditure.
(Paras 29–33)

Motor accident claims — Assessment of disability — Scaling down — Rational approach.
Where the claimant continues in employment and income is not directly affected, it is permissible for the Court to scale down the percentage of disability spoken to by medical evidence and adopt a rational proportion for computation of compensation.
(Paras 34, 35)

Motor accident claims — Multiplier method — Applicability in injury cases.
The multiplier method is applicable in injury cases for assessing compensation towards permanent disability and future loss, having regard to age, income, and the extent of disability affecting the claimant.
(Paras 16(ii), 35)

Motor accident claims — Heads of compensation — Comprehensive assessment.
Compensation in injury cases must be assessed under multiple heads including pain and suffering, loss of amenities, permanent disability, medical expenses, future treatment, attendant charges, conveyance and special diet, and loss of leave, so as to restore the claimant, as far as money can, to the pre-accident position.
(Paras 16, 36)

Motor accident claims — Award exceeding amount claimed — Permissibility.
There is no bar on awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed in the petition. The statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act is to award “just compensation”, even if it exceeds the claim.
(Paras 38, 39)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

In motor accident injury claims, compensation must be just, reasonable, and comprehensive; permanent disability warrants compensation even where employment continues without salary reduction, and appellate courts are empowered to enhance compensation by reassessing evidence, applying the multiplier method, and awarding amounts exceeding the claim where warranted by the material on record.