amputation - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Income for Accident Claim Not Capped by Workmen’s Compensation Act

25Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Income for Accident Claim Not Capped by Workmen’s Compensation Act

The Supreme Court held that in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal must assess compensation based on the Act's principles. It is impermissible to apply the income ceiling from the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, once the claimant has elected the remedy under the M.V. Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a 23-year-old lorry loader, suffered grievous injuries in a vehicular accident on 1st December 2015, which resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal, assessing his monthly income at Rs. 9,000, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 19,35,400, which included a significant component for future loss of income. On appeal by ...

Tribunal’s Income Assessment Upheld: Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Injury Claim Case

22Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Tribunal’s Income Assessment Upheld: Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Injury Claim Case

The Supreme Court partially restored the Tribunal's compensation award, upholding the adopted monthly income and modifying attendant charges. It clarified that in the absence of a cross-appeal by the claimant, enhancement beyond the Tribunal's award or addition of future prospects cannot be claimed against the insurer's appeal. Facts Of The Case: On January 5, 2013, the appellant, Ramar, was standing by the side of the road when a rashly and negligently driven lorry hit him. The accident resulted in grievous injuries, leading to the amputation of his right leg from the thigh and a crush injury to his left leg, which paralyzed it. Medical evidence presented before the Tribunal, including the testimony of treating doctors and hospital records, proved the nature of the injuries and as...

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation: Income Tax Returns Must Be Considered for Accident Claims

11Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation: Income Tax Returns Must Be Considered for Accident Claims

The Supreme Court held that for motor accident compensation, the functional disability affecting earning capacity, not just medical disability, is determinative. Income tax returns must be reasonably considered unless proven fabricated. Just compensation includes actual medical expenses proven by vouchers and future medical needs, but future prospects are not awarded when the claimant can continue earning post-disability. Facts Of The Case: On April 9, 2007, the appellant, Anoop Maheshwari, was riding his motorbike when it was hit by a rashly and negligently driven truck. The accident resulted in Maheshwari suffering a severe injury, specifically a hemipelvectomy, which is the amputation of one leg along with a portion of the pelvic bone. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal established t...

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling :Notional Income of an Engineering Student Should Be Higher

25Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling :Notional Income of an Engineering Student Should Be Higher

The Supreme Court modified the contributory negligence apportionment to 20% on the claimant, 50% on the car driver, and 30% on the bus driver. It enhanced compensation by revising the notional income calculation for an engineering student and reinstated attendant charges, emphasizing just compensation for 100% disability. Facts Of The Case: On January 7, 2017, the appellant, a 20-year-old engineering student, was riding a motorcycle with a friend on the pillion. A car ahead, driven by respondent no. 2, suddenly applied its brakes on the highway because the driver's pregnant wife felt a vomiting sensation. This caused the appellant to collide with the rear of the car and fall onto the road. Subsequently, a bus, insured by respondent no. 1, which was coming from behind, ran over the appell...