http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

                                                       REPORTABLE

                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CIVIL APPEAL NO.             OF 2008                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8050 of 2007)

Rajesh Kumar @ Raju                               ... Appellant

                                Versus

Yudhvir Singh & Anr.                              ... Respondents

                           JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.    Leave granted.

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 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming a sum of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

                                 2

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 thereagainst. The High Court awarded a

further sum of Rs.84,800/-, opining :

           "Minimum wages 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/-.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

                                  3

            Aplying 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 = 1,94,400/-."

     It was further observed :

            "Damages 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 Rs.25,000/-.              "

5.    Mr. Gaurav Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant, would submit that having regard to the provisions contained in

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the purpose of awarding

compensation on disability, the provisions of the Workmen’s

Compensation Act, 1923 would be attracted. According to him, in view

of the fact that there is no dispute in regard to the genuineness of the said

disability certificate, the High Court committed a serious error in

assessing the total disability at 30% only. It was pointed out that the

appellant was an indoor patient in the Lady Harding Hospital for a

month. The injury suffered by him was considered to be a grievous one

and allegedly one-third of his lower limb had been amputated. In view of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

                                 4

the fact that no evidence, contrary thereto, has been produced by the

respondents, it was urged that the learned Tribunal as also the High

Court committed a serious illegality in arriving at the aforementioned

finding.

6.    Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-insurance

company, however, supported the impugned judgment.

7.    The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act and not

under Section 163A thereof. It was contended by the claimant-appellant

that the driver of the bus in question was rash and negligent as a result

whereof, the accident took place. By reason of Section 167 of the Act,

an injured person had the option either to file a claim under the Motor

Vehicles Act or the Workmen’s Compensation Act, if both the Acts

apply. It is, therefore, a case where the claimant could have filed at his

option an application under the Workmen’s 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

                                  5

thereof are not justiciable. The Tribunal can determine the amount on

the basis of the basic datas provided therefor.

     Explanation appended to Section 163A of the Act, reads, thus :              Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-              section, ‘permanent disability’ shall have the              same meaning and extent as in the Workmen’s              Compensation Act, 1923."

8.    The reference to Workmen’s 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 Workmen’s 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 Workmen’s

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

                                   6

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

Workmen’s 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 Workmen’s 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.

10.   We are of the opinion, that it is not a case where we should

interfere in the impugned judgment of the High Court as also the award

of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                                               .............................J.                                                 [S.B. Sinha]

                                               .............................J.                                                 [Lokeshwar Singh Panta]

New Delhi May 13, 2008