'Supreme Court restores disability compensation for bike accident victim, corrects arithmetical error by High Court'
Ravi v. The National Insurance Company Ltd. And Another
Civil Appeal 6739/2023
Before Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court, allowed the appeal and restored the award of the Tribunal, holding that the High Court erred in applying the multiplier formula for computing disability compensation.
Fact
1. Ravi, the appellant, suffered a head injury and other grievous injuries while riding his bike without a helmet on 28.01.2018 in Thiyadurgam. He filed a claim for disability compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kallakurichi.
2. The appellant was initially treated at Preliminary Health Centre, Thiyadurgam and then at Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry. He was then shifted to Neuro Foundation Hospital, Salem.
3. Two Medical Boards examined Ravi as part of the evidence led before the Tribunal.
5. Eventually, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to Rs.13,32,600/- as compensation but since he was not wearing a helmet while driving the bike, 20% and 15% contributory negligence and negligence for travelling without a helmet, respectively was assessed.
6. Hence, 65% of the assessed amount i.e. Rs.8,66,190/- was awarded to the appellant as compensation.
Award Challenged by Insurance Company by way of Appeal before the Madras High Court
Grounds of Appeal
1. The Tribunal erroneously assessed the functional disability at 100%.
Whereas the Medical Board’s Certificate assessed the appellant’s disability at 45% only.
2. The Madras High Court, vide its order dt. 04.08.2021, accepted the plea taken by the Insurance Company and after assessing the disability at 45%, reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 4,81,065/-.
Observation of the Supreme Court
1. In the case of Sarla Verma and Others Transport Corporation and Another v. Delhi, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, Apex Court laid down the multiplier scheme for computation of disability compensation in claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as per the age bracket.
2. Since the claimant was 50 years old at the time of the accident, he belonged to the 46-50 years age group, which required the application of Multiplier 13.
3. The claimant’s earning capacity was 6000/- per month.
4. Accordingly, 6000x12x13 was the formula used by the Tribunal for calculating disability compensation and it was correct as per the guidelines issued in Sarla Case.
5. High Court assessed disability as 45% and further reduced compensation amount by Rs.2,70,000/-.
6. There is an arithmetical error in the very computation formula applied by the High Court, the judgment is liable to be set aside.
Seema Bhatnagar
