LexNEERUPAM MOHAN MATHUR versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 15 NEERUPAM MOHAN MATHUR v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. (Civil Appeal No. 4814 of 2013) JULY 1, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] A 8 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 110-A - Motor accident - Permanent disability - Claim for compensation - Tribunal C awarded compensation of Rs.3,20,0001- - High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7, 04, 8001- after taking loss of earning capacity to 70% in view of permanent disability - On appeal, held: High Court has rightly assessed loss of earning capacity to 70% as per Workmen's Compensation Act D - Since the courts below did not allow reasonable amount for different pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the amount of compensation re-determined to Rs.11,64,3001- - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The appellant, during motor accident, lost his right hand which was amputated near the shoulder. He filed claim petition, seeking compensation for the loss. Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/-. High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.7,04,800/-, holding that loss of claimant's earning capacity was 70%. The appellant filed the instant appeal and contended that his permanent disability should have been assessed E F as 100% and not 70%; and that lesser amounts had been G paid towards the cost of prosthesis and towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Allowing the appeal, the Court 15 H 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A HELD: 1. The claimant suffered permanent disability of amputation of arm above elbow and as a result of injuries, he was not in a position in doing the specialized job of designing, refrigeration and air conditioning. For the said reason, claimant's services were terminated by B his employer but that does not mean that the claimant was not capable to do any other job including the desk job. Having qualification of B.SC degree and Post Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, he can perform any job where application of mind is required than any c physical work. Therefore, no grounds are made out to interfere with the finding of the High Court which determined the percentage of loss of earning capacity to 70% adopting the percentage of loss of earning capacity as per the Workmen's Compensation Act. The total loss 0 of income was thus rightly calculated by the High Court at Rs.6,04,800/-. [Paras 13 and 14] [24-F-H; 25-A-B] Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343: 2010 (13) SCR 179 - relied on. E 2. However from the award passed by the Tribunal and judgment rendered by the High Court, no grounds are shown by the Tribunal or the High Court in providing pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages at a lower rate. Against some of the heads even no amount has been F allowed. The claimant placed evidence to suggest that the cost of prosthesis was Rs.75,000/- . It was accepted at Bar that the cost of prosthesis was Rs.1,60,000/-. lnspite of the same the Tribunal did not choose to allow any amount towards prosthesis and the High Court allowed G a petty amount of Rs.50,000/- for the same. No separate amount was allowed towards travelling to the Hospitals though the claimant was required to go to attend the Hospital every 10 days for treatment. A meager sum of Rs.25,000/- has been allowed by the High Court towards H NEERUPAM MOHAN MATHUR v. NEW INDIAASSURANCE 17 CO. pain and suffering. Therefore, with a view to do complete A justice to the claimant, the amount of compensation is re- determined to Rs.11,64,300/-. [Paras 15, 17 and 18] [25- B-C, E-G; 26-A; 27-B] Case Law Reference: 2010 (13) SCR 179 relied on Para 12 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4814 of 2013. B From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2010 of the C High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 693 of 1989. Mahabir Singh, Nikhil Jain, Gagan Deep Sharma for the Appellant. D M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat, Karan for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal is filed by the claimant-appellant against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in FAQ No.693 of 1989, whereby the High Court granted a meager enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). 3. The facts involved in the present case are as follows: The claimant was employ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.