Mumbai: Establishing that a victim’s specific, physically demanding occupation must dictate the assessment of functional disability and future loss of earning capacity, motor accident claims tribunal awarded almost Rs 68 lakh compensation to a 44-year-old deep-sea diver who was injured when a truck rammed into the bike he was travelling on as a pillion rider. The victim lost his job offer as a diver overseas.The tribunal said, “In the present case, the evidence establishes a rear-end collision with the motorcycle stopped at the traffic signal. The driver of a heavy goods vehicle approaching a traffic signal is under a duty to maintain proper control, reasonable speed and adequate distance from vehicles ahead.” The tribunal accepted that the injury had a serious effect on the work of the victim, Andheri (East) resident Sukhbinder Paramjit, because the occupation was physically demanding. The tribunal said, “The distinction is of special importance in the present case because the applicant was not engaged in ordinary sedentary employment. His occupation was that of a Diving Supervisor or Deep-Sea Diver.”The tribunal added, “Such employment necessarily involves physical fitness, mobility, ability to undertake underwater/offshore work, climbing, balancing, movement and performance of physically demanding tasks.”For income assessment, the tribunal did not accept the full claim of US$400 (Rs 26,000 in 2017) per day as proved income. Paramjit had produced an employment offer dated Aug 18, 2017, from a European company proposing remuneration of US$400 per day, shortly before the accident. The tribunal treated the offer as relevant to earning potential but not as proof of actual permanent income. Instead, the tribunal relied on the income tax return, which showed net professional or business profit of Rs 7 lakh annually, or Rs 58,240 per month.Paramjit had filed an affidavit narrating the accident, treatment, sacral injury, prolonged bed rest, physiotherapy and loss of work as a diving supervisor and deep-sea diver. However, Paramjit did not later appear for cross-examination. The tribunal took note of this lapse and said, “The applicant’s failure to complete cross-examination is nevertheless a material evidentiary circumstance. His untested assertions cannot automatically be treated as conclusively proved.”The tribunal held, even so, the medical records and other documents could not be ignored. The records showed a sacral or sacropelvic fracture, bed rest for about three months, restricted movement for about a year, physiotherapy and rehabilitation. A disability certificate recorded 30% disability and recommended light duties.The tribunal held the driver, owner and insurer jointly and severally liable. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company was directed to deposit the awarded amount within two months. The amount is to be transferred to Paramjit’s verified bank account after identity and bank verification.The accident took place at about 5.15 pm on Sept 13, 2017, at Jay Coach Junction Signal on the Western Express Highway at Goregaon West. The victim, Sukhbinder Paramjit, was riding pillion on a motorcycle being ridden by his friend Sahadeo Newalkar. The motorcycle had stopped at a red signal when a truck came from behind and hit it. Paramjit and the rider were thrown on the road and suffered injuries.The tribunal noted that the truck was driven by Danish Khan and owned by Anilkumar Gupta. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company was the insurer, and the policy was valid from April 29, 2017, to April 28, 2018, covering the date of the accident.The driver and owner remained absent and the matter proceeded against them ex parte. The insurer contested the claim, denying negligence of the truck driver and alleging negligence by the motorcycle rider. The insurer also disputed Paramjit’s occupation, income, disability, claimed contractual earnings of US$400 per day, and alleged breach of policy conditions relating to the truck driver’s licence.On negligence, the tribunal relied on the FIR, police investigation, spot material, mechanical inspection and evidence of the investigating officer. Holding the truck driver responsible, the tribunal said, “The applicant was a pillion rider. No negligent act has been attributed to him personally.”The insurer’s defence of breach of policy condition was rejected.
