Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court Reduces Compensation Granted To Govt Servant Who Continued To Work After Accident

Srishti Ojha

1 March 2022 6:15 AM GMT

  • Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court Reduces Compensation Granted To Govt Servant Who Continued To Work After Accident

    While deciding on compensation to be paid in a case of motor vehicle accident, the Supreme Court has reduced the compensation granted by the High Court to a government servant considering that there was no permanent disability, he wasn't immobilized and he continued to work even after the accident While the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was Rs 6,21,000 which...

    While deciding on compensation to be paid in a case of motor vehicle accident, the Supreme Court has reduced the compensation granted by the High Court to a government servant considering that there was no permanent disability, he wasn't immobilized and he continued to work even after the accident

    While the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was Rs 6,21,000 which was increased to Rs.56,44,378 by the Rajasthan High Court, the Supreme Court has held that the respondent is entitled to receive total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000.

    Taking into consideration the accepted position that the respondent government servant had continued to work even after the accused, a Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi opined that the High Court was not correct in awarding compensation of Rs.56,44,378 by applying the multiplier to the net salary payable to him.

    The Bench issued the direction after taking into consideration that the government servant continued to earn the monthly salary he was earlier drawing, including increments, except some allowances given due to the nature of posting. Further, at the time of the injury, he was 56 years old and had about four years of service till his retirement.

    According to the Bench, the High Court also failed to notice that the injury certificate did not relate to permanent disability in the entire body, and had certified 75% disability in the lower limbs.

    The Bench noted that he is not immobilized, and can perform and undertake daily chores without help and assistance.

    The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had noticed all the pertinent facts and had awarded compensation of 6,21,000.

    Taking into consideration that the respondent had undergone an operation and an implant had been fixed on his vertebrae causing him physical pain, discomfort and possible decrease in lifespan, and that though entitled to pension and retirement benefits, he has lost the opportunity to take up post-retirement employment, the Bench found it appropriate to enhance the compensation of Rs. 6,21,000 by a further amount of Rs. 3,79,000.

    The Bench directed the further compensation of Rs. 3,79,000 to be paid within six weeks with interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.

    In the present case, the government servant had continued in government service even after his accident, and had retired on superannuation.

    The Bench recorded the following submissions made on behalf of the respondent government servant:

    • He had lost out on the encashment of his earned and medical leaves, due to the injuries suffered by him, a fact that has already been addressed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).
    • He was denied and deprived of certain allowances that were paid to him when he was in the CID department, viz., the intelligence allowance, special allowances and special pay allowance, as he was transferred from the CID Department to the Wireless Department on account of his injuries.
    • He underwent an operation and an implant has been fixed on his spine which affects him physically.
    • Owing to the operation and related medical issues, he had been deprived of post- retirement earning.
    • As per the certificate of disability, he has suffered 75% disability in the lower limbs. However, he accepted that he can move around, but sometimes here requires assistance.

    Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Ltd v Satish Chandra Sharma & Anr

    ;

    (CA 1579/2022) 


    Next Story