The compensation for functional disability for a motor accident victim cannot be uniformly applied, and it should depend on the impact it caused to an individual's career, said the Supreme Court directing the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited (MTC) to pay 6.13 lakh as compensation to a taxi driver.
In September 2008, an MTC bus hit a taxi driven by G Dhanasekar, leaving him with a fractured right leg and arm. After undergoing treatment, he was not able to bend his right knee beyond 90 degrees. His leg was shortened by a centimetre and could not walk without a limp. His right hand movement was also restricted. Requesting a suitable compensation, he said, "I am not in a position to drive vehicles. I completely lost my capacity to earn."
The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Chennai fixed the liability for accident on Dhanasekar as 50% and provided him with a compensation for 4.5 lakh. In 2010, he moved the high court for enhancement of compensation. The high court fixed his liability for the accident as 30% and reduced the compensation to 3.2 lakh.
Dhanasekar then moved the Supreme Court stating the tribunal and high court had erred by not taking into consideration his functional disability. As he could not continue his profession as a driver, he had to be reasonably compensated, he said. Further, there was no contributory negligence on his part and the bus driver was solely responsible for the accident.
A bench comprising Justice S J Mukhopadhaya and Justice Kurian Joseph said the tribunal's decision on ascertaining contributory negligence was "intra contradictory." Despite holding the bus driver as "the root cause of the accident," it went on to say "both vehicles came in a rash and negligent manner," and held both Dhansekar and the driver "equally responsible for the accident."
It also said the high court's finding that the driver's contributory negligence being 30% was "difficult to sustain." "Unfortunately despite specific ground taken before the HC, this aspect of the matter (contributory negligence) was not considered properly." The apex court said according to the evidence of a witness, a passenger was thrown out of the window and the taxi took a sudden U-turn on the impact of the accident. This meant the bus driver was solely responsible, said the bench.
While the victim was not totally disabled to drive a vehicle, he could not continue his career as a taxi driver, noted the bench adding "the percentage of physical disability can be safely taken as the extent of functional disability." As the doctor had assessed his disability as 35%, he had to be proportionately compensated along with reimbursements for medical expenses. However, as he had been compensated for functional disability, he was not entitled to any other compensation on account of physical disability or loss or earning capacity.
The bench then computed his compensation as around Rs 6.13 lakh.
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Supreme-Court-asks-MTC-to-pay-Rs-6-lakh-to-taxi-driver-injured-in-accident/articleshow/30925358.cms
In September 2008, an MTC bus hit a taxi driven by G Dhanasekar, leaving him with a fractured right leg and arm. After undergoing treatment, he was not able to bend his right knee beyond 90 degrees. His leg was shortened by a centimetre and could not walk without a limp. His right hand movement was also restricted. Requesting a suitable compensation, he said, "I am not in a position to drive vehicles. I completely lost my capacity to earn."
The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Chennai fixed the liability for accident on Dhanasekar as 50% and provided him with a compensation for 4.5 lakh. In 2010, he moved the high court for enhancement of compensation. The high court fixed his liability for the accident as 30% and reduced the compensation to 3.2 lakh.
Dhanasekar then moved the Supreme Court stating the tribunal and high court had erred by not taking into consideration his functional disability. As he could not continue his profession as a driver, he had to be reasonably compensated, he said. Further, there was no contributory negligence on his part and the bus driver was solely responsible for the accident.
A bench comprising Justice S J Mukhopadhaya and Justice Kurian Joseph said the tribunal's decision on ascertaining contributory negligence was "intra contradictory." Despite holding the bus driver as "the root cause of the accident," it went on to say "both vehicles came in a rash and negligent manner," and held both Dhansekar and the driver "equally responsible for the accident."
It also said the high court's finding that the driver's contributory negligence being 30% was "difficult to sustain." "Unfortunately despite specific ground taken before the HC, this aspect of the matter (contributory negligence) was not considered properly." The apex court said according to the evidence of a witness, a passenger was thrown out of the window and the taxi took a sudden U-turn on the impact of the accident. This meant the bus driver was solely responsible, said the bench.
While the victim was not totally disabled to drive a vehicle, he could not continue his career as a taxi driver, noted the bench adding "the percentage of physical disability can be safely taken as the extent of functional disability." As the doctor had assessed his disability as 35%, he had to be proportionately compensated along with reimbursements for medical expenses. However, as he had been compensated for functional disability, he was not entitled to any other compensation on account of physical disability or loss or earning capacity.
The bench then computed his compensation as around Rs 6.13 lakh.
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Supreme-Court-asks-MTC-to-pay-Rs-6-lakh-to-taxi-driver-injured-in-accident/articleshow/30925358.cms
Comments
Post a Comment