Motor Accident Claim Not A "Bonanza", Insurance Company Can't Be Saddled With Exorbitant Amounts For Temporary Injuries: Tripura High Court

The observation came from Justice T Amarnath Goud:

"After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence on record this Court feels that the injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant herein are temporary in nature and it not permanent. The learned Claims Tribunal below has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards the effect of injuries on the work capability of the claimant-appellant herein and the same 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."

The claimant had sustained compound fracture while travelling in a commander jeep whose driver lost control. The Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs. 16.6 lakhs compensation for the same. The appeal was filed under Section 173(1) of MV. Act, 1988 by the claimant for modification of the award and seeking compensation of Rs.49,48,000/- instead.

The claimant was a permanent vegetable seller, aged about 36 years. She claimed that due to the accident, she sustained injuries and the Doctors have given a disability certificate to the extent of 60% and the same is valid up to 2025. Thus, it was her case that she 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 Insurance Company argued that the instant case is not of permanent disability but of temporary disability.

Court after hearing the counsels noted that the injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant herein are temporary in nature and that the Claims Tribunal below has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards the effect of injuries on the work capability.

Further, it noted that the authority had not given any suggestion for review or reassessment. So the second disability certificate could not be considered for the purpose of grant of compensation.

"It is only a temporary disability and the work of petitioner of selling vegetable for some time was expected to suffer and thus Rs.3,00,000/- has been awarded towards compensation. Thus, this Court feels that adequately the issue of disability has been considered by the Tribunal."

In view of the above, the court decided that the judgement passed by Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is just and proper.