LexJAKIR HUSSEIN versus SABIR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 2 S.C.R. 460 JAKIR HUSSEIN V. SABIR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 2015) FEBRUARY 18, 2015 [V.GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 - Compensation - Claimant-driver sustained grievous injuries whereby his right arm suffered compound fractures preventing him from performing his regular work as a driver - 0 Assessment of compensation - Held: It is just and reasonable to consider his daily wage at Rs. 150/day as he was a driver of the motor vehicle which is skilled job - Though doctor assessed permanent disability of claimant at 55% since his hand was completely crushed E and deformed, loss of earning due to permanent disability may be treated as 100% loss caused to him since he would never be able to work as a driver again - Rs. 2 lakhs awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.2 lakhs awarded towards future medical expenses - Rs.1.5 F lakhs awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1.50 lakhs awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life - Award also passed on account of special diet, attendant expenses during the period of treatment and towards transportation. G H Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It is just and reasonable to consider the appellant's daily wage at Rs.150/- per day (Rs.4,500/- 460 JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR 461 per month i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum) as he was a A driver of the motor vehicle which is a skilled job. The Tribunal has wrongly determined the loss of income during the course of his treatment at Rs.51,000/- for a period of one year and five months. The same is enhanced to Rs.76,500/- (Rs.4,500 X 17 months). The B appellant was medically examined in order to prove his medical condition and the percentage of permanent disability. The doctor who treated him stated that the appellant has one long injury from his arm up to the wrist. Due to this injury, the appellant C had great difficulty to move his shoulder, wrist and elbow and pus was coming out of the injury even two years after the accident and the treatment taken by him. The doctor further stated in his evidence that 0 the appellant got delayed joined fracture in the humerus bone of his right hand with wiring and nailing and that he had suffered 55% disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the same. He was once again operated upon during the E pendency of the appeal before the High Court and he was hospitalised for 10 days. In view of the doctor's evidence, the Tribunal and the High Court erroneously took the extent of permanent disability at 30% and 55% respectively for the calculation of F amount towards the loss of future earning capacity. However, the appellant was a driver and driving the motor vehicle was the only means of livelihood for himself as well as the members of his family. The High Court also clearly observed that his right hand G was completely crushed and deformed. When it comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% loss caused to the appellant since he would never be able to work as H 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A a driver again. The contention of the respondent Insurance Company that the appellant could take up any other alternative employment is no justification to avoid their vicarious liability. Thus, by applying the appropriate multiplier, the total loss of future B earnings of the appellant would be at Rs.54,000 X 16 = Rs.8,64,000/-. [Paras 14, 15] [473-F-H; 474-A-H] 2. The facts, circumstances and evidence on record clearly showed that a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- was c incurred during medical treatment of the appellant. Keeping in mind his medical condition and future medical needs and requirements, Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded towards future medical treatment & incidental expenses in favour of the appellant. A sum D of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, an award of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities & enjoyment E of life and happiness. Further amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards special diet, Rs.40,000/- towards attendant expenses during the period of treatment and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation. A sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards costs incurred F during pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal and the High Court erred in granting
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.