ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus AJAY KUMAR MOHANTY & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 42 · Decided: 06-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
AJAY KUMAR MOHANTY & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7181 of 2015)
MARCH 06, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 – Compensation –
Computation of – Rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle
– Claimant met with an accident sustaining disability – Evidence of
the doctor that the disability to the extent of 55 % – Award of
Rs. 22,85,322/- as compensation by the tribunal, however, High
Court reduced the amount to Rs. 12,00,000/- – On appeal, held:
While calculating the income, the tribunal committed an error of
computation – Claim for compensation on the basis that the disability
was permanent not established – Annual loss of income comes to
Rs. 79,877/- – Disability being of a temporary nature, compensation
of Rs. 5 lakhs is awarded towards loss of income, Rs. 2 lakhs towards
trauma, pain and suffering, and Rs. 2,09,622/- towards medical
expenses – Thus, Rs. 9,10,000/- awarded with interest @ 9 per cent
p.a. from the date of the filing of the petition.
Claimant sustained disability as a result of a motor accident.
Tribunal awarded Rs. 22,85,322/- as compensation. Appellant-
Insurer filed an appeal challenging the compensation amount.
The High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 12,00,000/-
and interest from 7.5 per cent per annum to 7.0 per cent per
annum. Hence, the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On perusing the order of the tribunal, there is
merit in the submission of the insurer that while calculating the
income, the tribunal committed an error of computation. The
tribunal on the basis of the income tax returns for 2007, 2008
and 2009 arrived at an average income of Rs. 1,45,231/-. However,
  [2018]  3 S.C.R. 42
42
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
43
the tribunal thereafter noted that the average income comes to
Rs. 2,62,372/-. Ultimately, the tribunal proceeded on the annual
income of Rs. 2,22,000/- on the basis of the testimony of the
claimant that he was earning Rs. 18,500/- per month. This is
contradictory. On the basis of the finding of the tribunal that the
average income of the claimant for the previous three years was
Rs. 1,45,231/-, it would be necessary to take into account the
evidence of PW2-doctor that the disability is to the extent of 55
per cent. In other words, the loss of earning as a result of the
said disability would work out to Rs. 79,877/- per year. [Para 7]
[47-C-E]
1.2   In the instant case, the doctor admitted to having made
an interpolation in the disability certificate. The evidence indicates
that the disability is temporary and not permanent. The doctor
admitted that the disability certificate indicated a tick mark on
the word ‘permanent’ by mistake. He further stated that the
disability in the instant case was likely to improve. Having regard
to all the facts and circumstances, the claim for compensation on
the basis that the disability was permanent was clearly not
established. [Para 11, 12] [50-B-D]
1.3 There was no basis to award an amount of
Rs.20,75,700/-. The tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs. 2,09,622/- towards medical expenses. The figure of an annual
loss of income of Rs. 79,877/- is accepted. The disability being of
a temporary nature, compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs is awarded
towards loss of income. Compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs is awarded
towards trauma, pain and suffering. In addition, the claimant is
entitled to medical expenses of Rs. 2,09,622/-. The ends of justice
would be met by directing a payment of Rs. 9,10,000/- . The
claimant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per
annum from the date of the filing of the petition. The impugned
judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. [Para 13]
[50-F]
Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (2011) 12 SCALE
658 ; Govind Yadav v New India Insurance Company
Limited (2011) 10 SCC 683 ; R.D. Hattangadi v Pest
Control (India) (P) Ltd.  (1951) 1 SCC 551 ; Nizam’s
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. AJAY
KUMAR MOHANTY & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S. Dhananka
[2009] 9 SCR 313 : (2009) 6 SCC 1 ; Reshma Kumari
v Madam Mohan [2009] 11 SCR 305 :  (2009) 13 SCC
422 ; Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Co.
Ltd .[2010] 11 SCR 857  : (2010) 10 SCC 254 ; Raj
Kumar v Ajay Kumar [2010] 13 SCR 179 : (2011) 1
SCC 343 ; S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.