Go for 30 to 40 lakh

Hi, the compensation is generally evaluated by the earning capacity and the educational background of the victim and is calculated upto age of 60 years .. The compensation should be asked 1 -2 crores ..

A youth, who lost his leg in a road accident in 2009, has been awarded a compensation of over Rs 50 lakhs by Thane Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The applicant told MACT that due to the accident he lost his confidence, could not concentrate on studies due to inconvenience and discomfort caused because of his amputated leg, his future career got spoilt and education progress got stagnated. He claimed Rs 29,31,800 on various counts.

The truck driver, Malaji Damodar Rokade, and vehicle owner Amit Container Movers did not appear before MACT and hence the matter was decided ex-parte against them. The insurance firm, however, contested the claim.

In his order, the judge noted that, “Considering the oral evidence of the applicant and spot panchnama on record, I am of the view that the applicant sufficiently proved that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the truck driver. The applicant was pillion rider on motorcycle, therefore question of contributory negligence does not arise.”

Due to the truck driver’s negligence, the applicant suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability. Thus, the applicant is entitled for compensation, the tribunal ruled.

As regards the applicant’s performance in school after the mishap, the applicant submitted that prior to the accident he was scoring around 65 to 77 per cent marks, and after the accident in XII standard he scored just 45 per cent marks.

Considering the applicant’s disability and evidence on record, the MACT recently granted Rs 50,18,979 compensation to the boy, including costs towards hospitalisation and medical expenses, artificial limb, purchase of scooter of special provisions, physical pain and sufferings, damages for loss of amenities in life including loss of marriage, future earning, and future expenses on replacement of artificial limb.

Dear,

Everybody can assessed damages under two heads-

Pecuniary damages and general damages.

Pecuniary damages -

1. Medical treatment, transportation, special diet, etc.;

Actual loss of earning of profit up to the date of trail;

Future loss of earning.

2. Non pecuniary damages include-

damages for mental and physical shock,

pain and suffering in present or for the future;

compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may

include a variety of matters; on a/c. of injury.

It is a fact that, "Life cannot be valued; similarly no human being can be put into any monetary value of his limb or of any other human being. The courts can only grant compensation for the pecuniary and monetary loss caused and some other expenses, but no court can even attempt to grant compensation for loss of life or limb. Mainly pecuniary loss has to be assessed. Long expectation of life is connected with earning capacity. In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accidents it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, etc. Since, injuries cause deprivation to the body which results in losses, entitling the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity and nature of disability or of injuries suffered. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non pecuniary. But all this has to be converted into rupees and paisa. "

If you have thought about the money consideration which you want to seek before the Court as compensation, then you can mention that, else with all proof And problems faced or maybe faced in future, you can pray before the Court to fix the compensation after going through all the points of the claimant.

You should do the following:

1. File a petition before the relevant court Motor Accident Tribunal;

2. Collect all you evidences etc;

3. Since he is student (best years of his life ahead of him are taken away from him) you can seek maximum compensation;

You can also rely on these Landmark judgments in M.V. Act:-

i] N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. Vs/. M. Karumai Ammal and ors. (1980 ACJ 435 Supreme Court, AIR 1980 SC 1354; [1980(41) FLR 152]; (1980) 3 SCC 457; [1980] 3 SCR 101; 1980 (12) LC 414 (SC):

ii] Dr. Dattatraya Laxman Shinde vs. Nana Raghunath Hire and ors – 2013 ACJ 474 (Bom.);

-Para 22

iii] Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sangita D. Jamdade and ors. (2006 ACJ 971 Bom.):

iv] Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. And anr. vs. Devilal and ors. 1991 ACJ 230 (Rajasthan); and

v] Philippose Cherian and anr. vs. T.A. Edward Lobo and anr. 1991 ACJ 634 (Kerala);

vi] Vimal Kanwar and ors. Vs. Kishore Dan and ors. 2013 ACJ 1441 SC);

vii] Rajesh & ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and ors. 2013 ACJ 1403 SC).

viii] Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Surendra Umrao and anr. 2008 ACJ 293 Allahabad

ix] In Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and ors.( 2003) 2 SCC 274, 2003ACJ12; AIR2003SC674;2003(1)AWC694(SC); (2003)1GLR897; [2003(1)JCR120(SC)];

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the claims tribunal as well as the appeal court to determine and award just and reasonable compensation and that such duty is statutory irrespective of whether claim has been made in respect thereof or not.

x] In Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transport Insurance Co. observed as under: (SCC p. 788, paras 67)

“The pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture. The determination of the question of compensation depends on several imponderables. In the assessment of those imponderables, there is likely to be a margin of error.”

xi] Similarly, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Devki Nandan Bangur v. State of Haryana observed that the grant of just and fair compensation is the statutory responsibility of the court and if, on the facts, the court finds that the claimant is entitled to higher compensation, the court should allow the claimant to amend his prayer and allow proper compensation.

xii] In Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport V. Ramarao( 2013) 5 MLJ 715, learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, after detailed consideration of the legal provisions as well as the precedents has held that it is the duty of the appeal court to award just compensation irrespective of whether or not the same may have been claimed by the claimants or not.

xiii] In Ningamma and anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Limited ( 2009) 13 SCC 710, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 34 has held that section 166 of the MV Act deals with “just compensation” and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made, a party should not be deprived from getting “just compensation” in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the M.V. Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty bound to award “just compensation” irrespective of the fact whether any plea was raised in respect of the claimant or not.

xiv] Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Devi, (1979) 4 SCC 365, this Court has expressed thus: “2. The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.”

xv] Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company, A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 305,

Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “in a claim for compensation it is certainly open to the insurer under section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a decence that the Driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licenced. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence.

Thereafter, he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle.

xvi] National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Bhat and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 1837 wherein it was held that notwithstanding the fact that licence possessed by the driver is fake one, the insurance company would not be absolved from the liability of reimbursement for the final amount of compensation payable by third party to the traveller. It was further held in this authority that the owner of the vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the licence from the transport authority.

Dear Client,

Amputation of leg and percentage of whole body disability,age of injured and income/future prospect (40% below 40 years) will take into account to calculate Compensation.

For deciding his income, His studies will take into account.

It may be calculated 18*12*15,000 + % of disability + future treatment + dependency + pain and suffering + medical expanses etc = 50 lacs

Seek compensation around 1.25 crore +.

Provide Disability certificate and FIR and education for precise amount to be expected.

Hi,

You may ask the compensation in crores.

In a case, where the injury results in total and permanent loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier method of quantification, by adopting suitable multiplier in respect of age of '23' year old student and also by taking into account, the future prospective earning of injured.

the physical disability is totally different from functional disability. Physical disability need not always be the same as the functional disability. The functional disability would depend upon the nature of the job vis-a-vis the part of the body affected. In cases of loss of limb which would be sine qua non for any kind of job and which would be essential to lead even a normal life, the loss of earning capacity would be 100%. Having regard to the fact that he is a student, expecting future and he has been immobilized throughout his life, his functional disability should be 100%.

The sufferings on account of amputation has to be taken into account to consider the quantum of compensation for loss of enjoyment of amenities.

Therefore based on his earning capacity pursuing his career, you may seek the quantum of compensation upto Rs. 1 crore also, let the court decide based on the mathematical formula or whatever calculation the court would base upon.

There is a standard table which is followed by the court. In your case his existing educational qualification his nature of work and estimated future income will be considered while computation of compensation.