GANGTOK, India, April 1 -- Sikkim High Court issued the following judgment/order on March 2:

1. The challenge in the instant Appeal is to the computation of compensation, arrived at by the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, the "MACT"), in MACT Case No.11 of 2024 (Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others), vide Judgment dated 26-12-2024.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants put forth the contention that the Appellant No.1 had suffered 90% locomotor permanent disability as duly established by Exbt-29 (collectively), Disability Certificate of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, issued by the Medical Authority, East District, Sikkim. The document specified that the Appellant had been in a road traffic accident and was thereby afflicted with traumatic paraplegia. The Appellant No.1 had also relied on Exbt-8, Wound Certificate which detailed his injuries including fracture of vertebrae. The MACT however failed to access his disability as 100%, which flies in the face of the decision of this Court in The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Yoel Subba and Others1 which had relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another2 while assessing such disability. (i) Advancing other grounds for the Appeal and walking this Court through the computation made by the MACT, Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that, the annual income of the Appellant No.1 prior to the accident was Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and sixty thousand) only. However, while calculating the loss of future earnings per annum, the MACT took into consideration only 90% of the income prior to his accident and thereby placed it erroneously at Rs. 3,24,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and twenty four thousand) only, instead of Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and sixty thousand) only. It was also urged that for loss of future earnings, 40% ought to have been included in the computation, in view of the fact that, the Appellant No.1 was thirty-three years old at the time of the accident.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcs.gov.in/hcs/hg_orders/201300000052025_9.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.