Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Assessment of negligence — Standard of proof — Preponderance of probability — Reliance on FIR and charge sheet. (Paras 17–21)
The claimant, a bus driver, sustained total loss of vision in the left eye when the offending Volvo bus dashed against the bus driven by him. FIR and charge sheet were filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company disputed negligence.
The Court reiterated that in motor accident claims strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required; the standard is preponderance of probability. Official records like FIR and charge sheet carry presumption of correctness unless rebutted. No contra evidence was produced by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: In motor accident claims, negligence can be established on preponderance of probabilities, and FIR coupled with charge sheet and ocular evidence of injured claimant suffice in absence of rebuttal evidence.
Liability of Insurer — Irrelevance of driving licence particulars of injured claimant. (Paras 22–24)
The Insurance Company attempted to rely upon aspects relating to the claimant’s driving licence. The Court held that such evidence was irrelevant to insurer’s statutory liability under the policy issued to the offending vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: In a claim under Section 166 M.V. Act, the driving licence particulars of the injured claimant are irrelevant to determine liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle.
Functional Disability — Driver losing vision in one eye — Whether 30% medical disability equals 100% functional disability. (Paras 31–34)
Medical Board assessed 30% permanent disability. The claimant, being a professional bus driver aged 36 years, lost total vision in left eye. The Court held that though medical disability was 30%, functional disability for a driver must be treated as 100%, as he cannot continue the profession of driving.
Multiplier of 15 was applied for age 36. Annual income assessed at Rs.62,400/-. Loss of earning capacity computed at Rs.9,36,000/-.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a professional driver suffers permanent visual impairment disabling him from driving, 30% medical disability may translate into 100% functional disability for the purpose of computing loss of earning capacity.
Assessment of Income — Future prospects in injury cases. (Paras 31–34)
Monthly income was reasonably fixed at Rs.4,000/- for 2005. Adding 30% towards future prospects, income was taken at Rs.5,200/- per month.
Ratio Decidendi: In injury cases involving permanent disability affecting earning capacity, addition towards future prospects is permissible while assessing loss of future income.
Heads of Compensation — Liberal and Broad-Based Approach — Just Compensation. (Paras 25, 35–36)
The Court restructured compensation under multiple heads including pain and suffering, transportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges, loss of income during treatment, permanent disability, loss of amenities, and future treatment. Total compensation enhanced from Rs.2,53,600/- to Rs.11,36,000/- (tabulated in Para 36).
Ratio Decidendi: Compensation in injury cases must be broad-based and realistic, covering all pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads to restore the injured, as far as possible, to the pre-accident position.
Award of Compensation Beyond Claimed Amount — Permissibility. (Para 37)
The Court reaffirmed that there is no restriction on awarding compensation higher than the amount claimed, as the statutory mandate under Section 168 is to award “just compensation.”
Ratio Decidendi: The Claims Tribunal and Appellate Court are empowered to award compensation exceeding the claimed amount if warranted by evidence to ensure just compensation.
Final Orders
In M.A.C.M.A. No. 2224 of 2012 (Insurance Company Appeal)
Dismissed. Liability of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Owner and Insurer of offending vehicle) upheld.
In M.A.C.M.A. No. 737 of 2012 (Claimant’s Appeal)
Allowed.
Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,53,600/- to Rs.11,36,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of petition till realization.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 directed to deposit the amount within two months. Claimant directed to pay court fee on enhanced portion. No order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment