The Court held that the Tribunal erred in not applying the multiplier method for future loss of income. It enhanced the compensation amount significantly and directed a reduction in the interest rate to 7.5% p.a. as per Supreme Court guidelines.
Modified Tribunal award to Rs.3,55,000/-; interest rate fixed at 7.5% p.a. from filing date.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1563 of 2007
Appellant :- Rajendra Kumar Respondent :- Shyam Lal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anju Shukla,Nigamendra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Om Prakash Mishra
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
(i) Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330; (ii) Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735; (iii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178; and (iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011.
as future loss of income to the injured in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 and Syed. Sadiq and others (Supra) which would bring the figure to = Rs.28,800/-. The disability was 30%. However, the functional disability can be considered to be 20% as he has fracture of his right leg. Hence, the loss in income would be 20% of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is equal to Rs.20,000/- per year as he was 40 years of age. The multiplier of 15 will apply. Hence, he would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for future loss of income. Under the head of pain shock suffereing, he would be entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/for attendant charges.
"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court."
Order Date :- 18.10.2019 LN Tripathi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal incorrectly failed to consider the multiplier method for calculating future loss of income?
Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was unreasonable?
What is the correct quantum of compensation including future loss of income and interest rate?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and anotherReferred¶9
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330 · Who else cites this
Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company LimitedReferred¶9
Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735 · Who else cites this
V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and anotherReferred¶9
V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178 · Who else cites this
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and anotherRelied on¶12
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 · Who else cites this
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and OthersRelied on¶15
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)
Rajendra Kumar
Shyam Lal
Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
