This appeal challenges a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 71,000. The Court held that since no evidence of permanent disability was adduced, the loss of future earning capacity could not be assessed. The appeal was dismissed on merit.
Award of Rs. 71,000 upheld; appeal dismissed.
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.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010006752012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp. 134/2012
1:MRINALEE BHUYAN
D/O SHRI MADAN BHUYAN, H/NO. 27. PURNALAXMI BHABAN, NIZARAPAR, P.S. CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-3, DIST. KAMRUP M
VERSUS
1:NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. and ORS
GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, OPPOSITE RAJIV BHAWAN, G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-5
2:ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI-78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.D BORGOHAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : MS.M CHOUDHURY
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 05-02-2020
Heard Ms. M. Dev, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Borchetia for the respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. A. Acharya, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
Page No.# 2/3
which the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 71,000/- to the appellant/claimant.
She has also submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the claim made for loss of comfort and that the appellant has not recovered fully, as she has bridged 5 numbers of artificial teeth. Also, the injuries would make the appellant suffer for the rest of her life. The learned counsel also submits that due to the appellant’s injuries, the learned Tribunal should have considered the future prospects of the appellant, as she has not been able to interact with her clients properly. She also submits that the award of Rs. 25,000/- for mental shock and agony is very low. Besides the above, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that she has collected new documents which require further evidence.
She accordingly prays that the impugned judgment and award should be set aside and the case should be remanded back to the learned Tribunal so that additional evidence can be adduced.
In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Apex Court has held that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and
Page No.# 3/3
impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Apex Court in Raj Kumar (supra) further held that the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability, then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity.
In cases of injuries sustained in a vehicular accident, the question of whether a claimant suffered a permanent disability or a temporary disability will depend upon the evidence of a medical expert i.e. a doctor. In the present case, no doctor has been examined before the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, there is no evidence to show that the appellant sustained any permanent disability. It is also not the pleaded case of the appellant in the appeal that she had suffered any permanent disability. Accordingly, in view of the law laid done in Raj Kumar (supra), the question of considering loss of earning capacity of an injured person cannot be gone into, as the first requirement for considering the same has not been established. Besides the above, Para No. 6 of the claim petition of the appellant shows that the appellant was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month earlier and at the time of filing the claim petition, she was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. Thus, there has been a rise in her earning capacity after the accident.
In view of the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the claimant suffered a permanent disability justifying assessment of loss of future earning capacity.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to further compensation based on alleged lack of full recovery.
Whether the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award has merit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raj Kumar v. Ajay KumarExplained¶28
(2011) 1 SCC 343 · Who else cites this
MRINALEE BHUYAN
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
