LexN. MANJEGOWDA versus THE MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013] 12 S.C.R. 350 N. MANJEGOWDA v. THE MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (Civil Appeal Nos. 10192-10193 of 2013) NOVEMBER 12, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: s.166 - Accident of an advocate aged 36 years - Compensation under head 'loss of future income due to disability' - Multiplier - Annual income of Advocate assessed D by Tribunal on the basis of Income Tax returns - Held: Functional disability of an accident victim requires determination on the basis of nature of disability in the light of the career or profession which the claimant was pursuing - It should not be computed mechanically only on percentage E of physical disability - A young Advocate is bound to suffer huge professional loss on account of injuries as have been sustained by the appellant - He was having partial sensory loss all over his limbs and lacked proper coordination in all four limbs -- It is the medical opinion that appellant requires an assistant for daily routine work - High Court erred in F reducing compensation under head 'loss of future income' - Loss of earning should be treated as 70% and appropriate multiplier should be 16 in place of 13 - On that basis, the loss of income due to disability is enhanced from Rs.6, 17,5001- (as awarded by Tribunal) by Rs.4,00,0001- - Compensation G under other heads calls for no interference - Claimant shall be entitled to 6% interest on total compensation from date of petition till date of payment. The appellant, an Advocate by profession, aged H 350 N. MANJEGOWpA v. MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA 351 INSURANCE CO. LTD. about 36 years, while riding his motor bike, met with an A accident involving motor bike of respondent no.2, and sustained grievous injuries over his hands, legs and spinal cord. He preferred a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal, which on the basis of Income Tax Returns, accepted annual income of B the appellant to be Rs.95,000/-, assessed the whole body disability at 50%, selected 13 as the multiplier and awarded an amount of Rs.6,17,500/- under the head of 'Loss of income due to disability'; and the total compensation as Rs. 8,87,300/-. The High Court reduced c compensation under the head 'Loss of Income due to disability' to Rs.1,50,000/-. The total compensation was thus reduced by a sum of Rs.4,67,500/-. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Functional disability of an accident victim requires determination on the basis of nature of disability D in the light of the career or profession which he or she wa·s pursuing in life. It shloi\ild not be computed mechanically only on percentage of physical disability. E [para 11] [358-F-G] Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Limited And Others 2013 (8) SCC 389 - relied on. 1.2 A young Advocate is bound to suffer huge F professional loss on account of injuries as have been sustained by the appellant and the condition in which the doctor found him. The appellant has been found to suffer weakness of four limbs. He has to work slowly and requires help in climbing steps, cannot run, cannot write G sharply and speedily with his right hand. He was having partial sensory loss all over his limbs and lacked proper coordination in all four limbs. It is the medical opinion that the appellant requires an assistant for daily routine work. In view of the medical assessment of appellant's H 352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A condition after sustaining injuries in the accident and in the light of whole body disability of 50%, it would be certainly very difficult for the appellant to practice as an Advocate and compete with others so as to command confidence and acceptability of general clients. Unlike B many other professions, legal profession requires not only sharp and focused mind but also good health and ability to put in hard work within a limited time frame. The High Court erred in opining that the accident and the injuries, which were proved to have caused 50% C disability of whole body, would have no effect on the earning capacity of the appellant. [para 8 and 12) [356-G- H; 358-G; 359-A-D] 1.3 The High Court erred in reducing the loss of income due to disability. A perusal of the impugned D judgment shows that there is no basis for allowing only Rs.1,50,0001- under the head 'Loss of future income.' [para 10 and 13) [357-C; 359-E] Yadava Kuma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.