The Tripura High Court has observed that Motor Vehicle Act is a Beneficial Law but at the same time it can't impose exorbitant amount on insurance company for temporary injuries sustained by a claimant.
The single-judge bench of Justice T Amarnath Goud was in this view dismissed an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act, 1988 to modify/ seting aside of MACT award.
The main contention of the claimant-appellant was that due to the accident the claimant-appellant has sustained injuries and the Doctors have given a disability certificate to the extent of 60% and the same is valid up to 2025. Since the disability has not been considered by the learned Claims Tribunal, a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been awarded. The claimant-appellant sought enhancement of the same
His Counsel submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the future loss of income to the extent of 30% as per Apex Court citation. He further submitted that the claimant-appellant is entitled to loss of income to the extent of 100% more particularly when her disability stood stagnant at 60% even after the expiry of 9 years from the date of the accident.
The Counsel for Insurance Company countered the said argument and submitted that the instant case herein was not a case of permanent disability but it is a case of temporary disability. He cited SC ruling in to submit that in case of permanent disability, future loss of income can be allowed, but, if it is held that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity.
The Court agreed with the view and noted that the claim of ₹3,00,000/- awared by Tribunal towards the effect of injuries on the work capability of the claimant-appellant herein is appropriate in nature.
"No doubt, it is beneficial legislation and the claimant-appellant herein needs to be considered for fair compensation. But, at the same time it cannot be a bonanza and the respondent insurance company cannot be penalized with an exorbitant amount in favour of the claimant-appellant. Further, in the first disability certificate dated 15.12.2014, the disability of the claimant-appellant herein is assessed for 5(five) years period as 60% which is likely to be improved disability certificate, the issuing authority has not given any suggestion for review or reassessment. So the second disability certificate dated 02.03.2020 cannot be considered."
Declaring the award as just and proper, the Court denied to interfere with the same.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments