- CASE TITLE- RAHUL GANPATRAO SABLE VS LAXMAN MARUTI JADHAV (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS
- COURT- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- DATE OF ORDER- 05TH JULY 2023
- BENCH- HON’BLE JUSTICE MR.VIKRAM NATH
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The present appeal is preferred by the injured-claimant against the order of the judgement and order passed by the High Court dated 29.03.2019
- The High Court in its judgement awarded additional compensation of Rs.8,66,787, over and above, the compensation of amount Rs.7,21,895 awarded by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal.
- The present appeal is seeking enhanced compensation under different heads awarded by the tribunal and high court.
- The appellant suffered severe injuries on 27.04.1994 resulting into permanent disability to the extent of 85% as under the Right to Disability Act,2016.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT
- The learned counsel submitted that the High Court has erred in deducting 50% amount towards personal expenses. It was argued that since case is of injury and not death, there was no question of deduction of expenses.
- The counsel submitted that the disability suffered by the appellant has resulted into 100% loss of income as the appellant has been rendered completely unfit for working.
- The counsel relied on the judgement in the case of Chaus Tausif Almiya etc. Vs. Memon Mohammad Umar Anwarbhai and others (2023) in context to seeking compensation for attendant charges and future medical expenses.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The counsel submitted that the High Court had correctly decided after considering all the issues involved and the material evidence.
- It was submitted by the counsel that the respondent is seeking no appeal and the issues regarding the accident and liability have attained finality.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
- The apex court granted leave.
- The court observed that compression fractures of seven cervical vertebra and loss of bladder has made the appellant absolutely impossible to work and earn.
- It was held that considering the nature of disability caused to the appellant, the loss of income is to be 100% and not 50%.
- The one-third deduction made by the High Court towards uncertainties of life was held incorrectly by the apex court.
- The court held that the 50% deduction made towards personal expenses by the High Court is incorrect and unjustified.
- Court considered the fatal injuries suffered by the appellant requiring an attendant and awarded compensation of Rs.10,80,000 towards attendant charges.
