Jharkhand High Court
Md. Shad vs The Divisional Manager on 27 July, 2021
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 75 of 2018
.........
Md. Shad ..... Appellant
Versus
1. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.
2. Mr. Deepak Kumar ........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent no.1 : Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate
..........
13/Dated: 27/07/2021.
1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. The claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award dated 31.10.2017, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No.277 of 2014, whereby the claimant/injured Md. Shad has been awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.7,17,283/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of admission of claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act i.e. 18.12.2014 till its realization.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan has assailed the impugned award on the ground that learned Tribunal has awarded less compensation to the claimant/injured under various headings which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, at paras 6 to 21, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).-2-
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item (iii)-- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability--Item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case.
8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
-3-11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 :
(2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of "loss of future earnings", if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may -4- be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.
16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular, the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to "hold an enquiry into the claim" for determining the "just compensation". The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the "just compensation". While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a medical dictionary and a handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example, Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopaedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorised texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the First Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen.
17. If a doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and, if so, the percentage.
18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give "ready to use" disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily give liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or discharge certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of the claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local hospitals/medical colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.
20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following illustrations:
Illustration A.-- The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000 per month at the time of accident. As per doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent -5- disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows:
(a) Annual income before the Rs. 36,000
accident
(b) Loss of future earning per
annum (15% of the prior
annual income) Rs. 5400
(c) Multiplier applicable with
reference to age 17
(d) Loss of future earnings: Rs. 91,800
(5400 × 17)
Illustration B.-- The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000 per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows:
(a) Annual income prior to the : Rs.
accident 36,000
(b) Loss of future earning per
annum (75% of the prior Rs.
annual income) : 27,000
(c) Multiplier applicable with
reference to age : 17
(d) Loss of future earnings: : Rs.
(27,000 × 17) 4,59,000
Illustration C.-- The injured was aged 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows:
(a) Minimum annual income Rs.
he would have got if had 60,000
been employed as an
engineer :
(b) Loss of future earning per
annum (70% of the Rs.
expected annual income) : 42,000
(c) Multiplier applicable (25 : 18
years)
(d) Loss of future earnings: : Rs.
(42,000 × 18) 7,56,000
[Note.-- The figures adopted in Illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] .]
21. After the insertion of Section 163-A in the Act (with effect from 14-11-1994), if a claim for compensation is made under that section by an injured alleging disability, and if the quantum of loss of future earning claimed, falls under the Second Schedule to the Act, the Tribunal may have to apply the following principles laid down in Note (5) of the Second Schedule to the Act to determine compensation:
"5. Disability in non-fatal accidents.-- The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal accidents:
Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty-two weeks.
PLUS either of the following:
(a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of -6- determining the compensation, or
(b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under Item (a) above.
Injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement/permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923." (emphasis supplied) Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there are two headings under which compensation is awarded in personal injuries cases, which are as follows:-
A. Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, Hospitalization, Medicines, Transportation, nourishing food and Miscellaneous expenditute
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses;
B. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in the present case claimant/injured is a child, aged about 7 years, this Court has to consider the income of the claimant/injured, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2014 (14) SCC 396 and Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and ors., reported in 2020 (4) SCC 413, wherein in the absence of any income of a child below 15 years of age, the Apex Court has considered the income on the basis of the notification of minimum wages of skilled labourer, as such, in the present case, the claimant is entitled for minimum wages for the year, 2014 i.e. @ Rs.225.20 per day as the accident took place on 16.07.2014 and in a month of 26 working days, the monthly income shall come to Rs.5,855.20.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that so far damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries is concerned, which are the components of non-pecuniary damages, the learned Tribunal has paid less amount to the claimant in terms of non-
-7-pecuniary damages. Since the victim, Md. Shad is non-working minor boy of 7 years and left leg of the victim has been amputated from the knee, as such, this Court may consider his disability to be partial permanent disability.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that under the damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequences of the injuries, the learned Tribunal has only granted Rs. one lac (Rs.1,00,000/-), which is meagre amount as victim aged about 7 years have to suffer for his entire life, as such, this Court may enhance the same. That apart the amount under the headings of loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) may also be enhanced .
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that because of such injury shortening of normal longevity will also occur, as such, this Court may consider compensation afresh, which should be just and fair compensation for the claimant.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Mr. D.C. Ghosh, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has submitted that it is very difficult to compute the loss of earning capacity of a person, who is below the age of 15 years, as such, Apex Court has considered the income on the basis of the minimum wages of a skilled labourer as notified by the Government in the year of accident, but so far the other headings are concerned, that is with regard to the future medical expenses, loss of future earning on account of permanent disability and loss of earning during the period of treatment, the evidences with regard to the same have not been adduced by the claimant before the learned Tribunal, as such, in absence of any evidence, this Court may consider the compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal be just and fair compensation.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has further submitted that the amount under the heading of loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) is just and fair, as such, the respondent no.1-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is opposing the enhancement on the ground of loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials available on the record as well as the judgment passed by the Apex -8- Court, it appears that learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amount to the claimant/injured. The learned Tribunal has considered the income of victim aged about 7 years to be Rs.3,000/- per month as a notional income, which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Mallikarjun (Supra) and Kajal (Supra).
Under the aforesaid circumstances, since minimum wages of a skilled labourer from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 is Rs.225.20/- as notified by the Government and it is very difficult to quantify the same, as such, without commenting upon the method of calculation taken by the learned Tribunal, this Court prefers to compute the income on the basis of minimum wages of skilled labourer.
11. Further, expenses relating to treatment, which comes under the heading of pecuniary damages and special damages has been given as Rs.2,283/- on the basis of medical evidence adduced by the claimant before the learned Tribunal, which has been brought on record as Exhibit-8 to Exhibit-8/30.
12. So far the hospitalization is concerned, from perusal of document i.e. Exhibits- 9 to 9/1 it is proved that the victim was hospitalized in the Government Medical Hospital i.e. RIMS, Ranchi, where medicines were provided.
So far nourishing food is concerned, the same has not been awarded apart from miscellaneous expenditure, as such, this Court has considered that the person was admitted from 18.07.2014 to 19.08.2014 and 03.09.2014 to 05.09.2014, as such, under the nourishing food a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded apart from miscellaneous expenditure, which includes the income of the parents, who suffered because of admission of their minor child, as such, the same shall also be to the Rs.25,000/-.
13. Under the aforesaid circumstances, under expenses relating to nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure the total amount should be Rs.52,283/- (i.e. Rs.2,283/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-).
14. So far the loss of earning during the period of treatment is concerned, since the victim is a non-working minor boy of 7 years, whose income has not been affected during the period of treatment, as such, no amount has been -9- granted by the learned Tribunal nor this Court is inclined to grant any amount.
15. So far the damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that injuries sustained by a child has left a definite permanent trauma for his entire life apart from trauma suffered by the family because of amputation of left leg from the knee. The amount awarded by learned Tribunal for pain, suffering and trauma to the tune of Rs.1 lac is a meagre amount, as such, the same is required interference by this Court for enhancement.
16. Further, since the victim has suffered 70% disability by amputation of his left leg from the knee, as such, in view of schedule-I of Employees' Compensation Act, the functional (loss of earning) disability of the victim covered under item no. 20 of the schedule, which is 50%, this Court in view of aforesaid schedule considered the functional disability of the claimant/injured to be 50%.
17. Accordingly, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2014 (14) SCC 396, where the disability is up to 60% and compensation has been awarded to the tune of Rs.3 lacs, as such, in the present case where the disability is up to 70% amount of Rs. 4 lacs shall be appropriate. Para 12 of the aforesaid judgment profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc. should be, if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole body, Rs 3 lakhs; up to 60%, Rs 4 lakhs; up to 90%, Rs 5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs 6 lakhs. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Rs 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick."
18. So far the prospects of marriage is concerned, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.1 lacs, it should be appropriate to enhance it upto Rs.2 lacs.
19. Now since no evidence has been brought on record with regard to the future medical expenses, as such, the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation and since nothing has been brought on record before this Court also, as such, this Court is also not considering the same.
-10-20. So far the loss of expectation of life is concerned, the injury is not affecting the life of the person, as such, this Court is not inclined the grant the same.
21. Under the aforesaid circumstances, fresh calculation shall be as follows monthly income Rs.225.20 x 26 = Rs.5855.20/-. Thus annual income comes to Rs.5855.20/- x 12 = Rs.70,262.4/-.
22. After addition of 40% as future prospect total amount will come to Rs.98,367.36/- which is rounded-off to Rs.98,400/- which shall be multiplied with multiplier of 15 in view of the second schedule for compensation for fatal accident/injury under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, total comes to Rs.14,76,000/-.
23. Re-computation of the compensation is as follows:-
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25000/-
medicines, transportation, medicines, Total Rs.50,000/- + transportation, nourishing food, and Rs.2283/- = Rs.52,283/-
miscellaneous expenditure
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damagers)
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the Under
injured would have made had he not been a. Nil
injured, comprising: b. Rs.14,76,000/-
(a) Loss of earning during the period of Less 50% towards loss of
treatment; earning as per disability
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of Total comes to
permanent disability Rs.7,38,000/-
(iii) Future medical expenses Nil
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a Rs.4,00,000/-
consequence of the injuries as disability is 70%
in view of judgment Mallikarjun (Supra).
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of Rs.2,00,000/-
marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of NIL
normal longevity)
Total Rs.13,90,283/- along with
interest @ 7.5% per
annum.
24. The said amount shall be paid along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application in view of Section 171 of the MV Act read with judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2008) 4 JCR 79 SC. Since no reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal for granting interest from the date of admission, as such, the same shall be granted from the date of filing of the claim application by the Insurance Company.
-11-25. The amount of Rs.25,000/- paid under Section 140 of the MV Act along with the amount already paid by the Insurance Company pursuant to the award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 31.10.2017 shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid to the claimant through his father as he is a minor boy within a reasonable period as the accident is of dated 16.07.2014.
26. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) sandeep/R.S.