LexRAMACHANDRAPPA versus THE MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 922 A RAMACHANDRAPPA • • v. THE MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (Civil Appeal No 6481 of 2011) B AUGUST 9, 2011 ~ ~ [G. S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: c s. 166 - Motor accident - Permanent disability- Suitable compensation - Expression 'disability' - Connotation of - Claimant, a coolie, aged about 35 years, suffered grievous injuries - Permanent physical disability of right upper limb - D Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 1, 13,9001- - High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,33,9001- - Held: Compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location' or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury - Tribunals E are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper - In the instant case, the claim of claimant that his annual income was Rs.45001- is honest and bona fide - The doctor assessed permanent physical disability at 41% and stated that ~ .. F the claimant cannot do any manual work as a coolie - Taking into consideration the future economic loss, the claimant would suffer because of permanent partial disability, the medical expenses incurred, pain and sufferings, loss of income during treatment, period of loss of future amenities G and discomfort, interest of justice will be served if an additional amount of Rs.2,00,0001- is granted to the appellant by way of compensation -Insurance company directed to deposit before .. the Tribunal the enhanced compensation amount together with interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit. H 922 RAMACHANDRAPPA~MANAGER,ROYALSUNDARAM 923 ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD . • .J The appellant, who was aged about 35 years and A was working as a coolie, met with a motor accident and was grievously injured. He filed a petition stating that his right hand was completely disabled and he was unable to do the work of coolie; and claimed a compensation of -.. Rs. 5,50,000/-. In support of his claim, he examined the B doctor (PW 2), who deposed that the appellant could not work as a coolie by using his right hand and could not do any other manual work. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1, 13,900/·. On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,33,900/·. c Partly allowing the appeal filed by the claimant, the Court ., HELD: 1.1 The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant's earnings or earning capacity, D or upon the loss of particular faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The courts have time and again observed that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the E extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make an award .. "' determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper. [para 8) [928-E-F] 1.2 The term "disability", as so used, ordinarily F means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. ·1f the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if the claimant is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is G unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can H 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. A be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity •• in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case. [para 9] [928-G-H; 929-A-B] B Ramesh Chandra Vs. Randhir Singh 1990 (3) SCR 1 = (1990) 3 SCC 723; KG. Poovaiah (Or) v. G.M./Managing ,. '- Director, Kamataka KSRTC, (2001) 9 SCC 167; Kapi/ Kumar v. Kudrat Ali, (2002) 4 SCC 337, Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, 2010 (13) SCR 179 = (2011) 1 sec 343 - relied on. c 1.3 In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as ·a coolie and was earning Rs.4500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.