Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arvinder Singh Son Of Raghbir Singh vs Rajinder Kumar Son Of Mehanga Ram on 10 January, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.1048 of 2011(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1048 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.01.2013
Arvinder Singh son of Raghbir Singh, resident of Rattanheri
Road, near Sacred Heart Public School, near Butta Singh
Chakki, Khanna, district Ludhiana.
... Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Kumar son of Mehanga Ram, resident of Gati Pir Bux,
PS Lohia, district Jalandhar and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. RK Shukla, Advocate,
for the appellant.
None for respondents 1 and 2.
Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate,
for respondent 3.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? NO
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? NO
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for an injury in a motor accident that has resulted in amputation of left leg above knee. The doctor, who had examined him had certified that the claimant had suffered a 75% disability. He had incurred the medical expenses to the tune of `1,37,815/- brought on bills and remained in hospital for 6 days. The Court has awarded `6,000/- for pain and suffering, FAO No.1048 of 2011(O&M) [2] `1,50,000/- for the disability and awarded the total compensation at `2,93,815/-.
2. I find the compensation awarded to be wholly inadequate and improper where, an accident results in privation of an organ and loss of amenity is not the only head, which the Court should address but it must have been taken as causing loss of earning capacity as well. It is a "schedule injury" under the Workmen Compensation Act and the compensation has to be assessed from the point of view of how his own saleability in a job market is diminished by such a disability. The retention in job of an employee after such disability is not a defence for an insurer or a tort feasor. This issue has been answered in several judgments of various High Courts and this Court has also had an occasion to deal with the same issue in FAO No.3432 of 2009 titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Santosh Devi and others on 29.09.2010, vide paras 19 and 20. I would, therefore, find that the compensation has to be worked out first by taking the average income and applying percentage of loss of earning capacity. The amount must be applied with the suitable multiplier to ascertain the resultant pecuniary loss. The employer in this case had been examined to say that he was earning `10,000/- per month. A 75% disability must be taken as resulting 75% loss of earning capacity. The per month loss FAO No.1048 of 2011(O&M) [3] would be `7,500/-. Considering the fact that he was 32 years of age, the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable in this case must have been 16. So reckoned the total compensation, loss of earning capacity itself would be more than `10,00,000/-. The total compensation claimed itself is `10,00,000/- and I find no special circumstances to award more than what is claimed. I modify the award and award the compensation claimed in the petition as `10,00,000/-.
3. The award stands modified with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment on the additional amount of what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined already by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
10th January, 2013 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE