Case: Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh

2. Claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the appellant before us. On 11.8.2001, he was driving a two wheeler vehicle being a scooter. It was hit by a bus bearing Registration No.DL-1P-A-0746. He was a motor mechanic. In July 2003, he filed a claim in terms of Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act) claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Allegedly, he suffered 60% total disability. His claim was based on the premise that he was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month.3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant relied upon a certificate purported to have been issued by the Civil Surgeon, Faridabad on 11.11.2003 stating that he had suffered 60% disability. The learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,68,941 by way of compensation opining that his income was Rs.3,000/- per month and he was entitled to compensation upon taking 30% of his income at the rate of Rs.900/- per month being a total sum of Rs.20,000 besides the amount of compensation towards pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as general damages including conveyance, special diet etc. An interest at the rate of 7% per annum was also awarded.4. He preferred an appeal there against. The High Court awarded a further sum of Rs.84,800/-, opiningwages notified on 1.1.1980 for skilled workers was Rs.320/- per month. It rose to Rs.1043/- as on 1.1.1990. It rose to Rs.3,016/- as on 1.1.2001. The trend shows that minimum wages double every 10 years. Considering the age of the deceased being 34 years, it would be safe to assume that by the time he would turn 60, his income would have doubled. I accordingly treat the average monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. Applying the disability certificate, Ex.PW 2/2, being 30% disability, loss on account of disability comes to Rs.1350/- per month. Since multiplier adopted by the tribunal is 12 and the Respondents have raised no objection thereto, loss of future income comes to Rs. 1350/- x 12 x 12 =ges on account of compensation for loss of amenities of life, hardship and discomfort including frustration and stress under general damages awarded in sum of Rs.5,000/- is inadequate. I increase the same to

Reasoning:
It is, therefore, a case where the claimant could have filed at his option an application under the Workmens Compensation Act. Section 163A provides for filing of a claim petition where an accident took place by reason of use of the motor vehicle. It is not necessary to prove any fault on the part of the driver or the vehicle. The Tribunal in a proceeding arising under Section 166 of the Act is required to hold a full fledged trial. It is required to collect datas on the basis whereof, the amount of compensation can be determined. Under Section 163A of the Act, however, the question of liability and extent of proof thereof are not justiciable. The Tribunal can determine the amount on the basis of the basic datas provided therefor.The reference to Workmens Compensation Act by incorporation was only for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 163A. It was not meant to apply in a case falling under Section 166 of the Act. Had the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act were applicable, the procedure laid down therein would also apply. For the purpose of the definition of total disablement as also person who can grant a certificate therefor, namely, a qualified medical practitioner, Section 2(e) and 2(i) would be attracted. In terms of the 1923 Act, the amount of compensation is required to be determined as specified in Section 4. The Rules made in terms of Section 32 of the Act known as Workmens Compensation Rules 1924, would also be applicable.9. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmens Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.