Karnataka High Court
Srinivasa G Shetty vs A N Manjunath on 1 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2481, 2021 (1) AKR 723
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna, Ravi V Hosmani
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A. No.6320/2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRINIVASA G. SHETTY
S/O. GOVINDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O. JAYANAGARA, HARIHARPUR TOWN
AND POST, KOPPA TALUK
CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 126.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VINOD GOWDA , ADVOCATE)
(Through Video Conference)
AND:
1. A.N. MANJUNATH
S/O. NAGAPPAIH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
DRIVER AND AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. ALEMANE, DORGUL,
HIREKODUGE VILLAGE AND POST,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101.
DRIVER AND OWNER OF MARUTI
OMNI VAN BEARING
REG NO. KA- 18/Z-1818.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
CRESCENT COURT, K.M. ROAD,
CHIKMAGALUR BENCH - 577 101.
-: 2 :-
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
LAKSHMI SHOPPING COMPLEX,
SUBASH ROAD, KOPPA TOWN
AND POST - 577 126.
CHIKMAGALUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE ALONG
WITH SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O
DATED 27.11.2015 NOTICE TO R1 & R3 IS DISPENSED
WITH ) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2013 PASSED
IN MVC NO. 762/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, CHIKMAGALUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 08.09.2020, THIS DAY, RAVI V
HOSMANI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Principal District Judge and MACT, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal', for brevity), Chikkamagaluru, in M.V.C.No.762/2009 disposed of on 20.04.2013. The challenge is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
-: 3 :-
3. For the sake of convenience, parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.06.2007 at about 11.15 A.M., petitioner was riding his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18/K-5652 from Hariharpur to Koppa. Near Hirekere bus stop, a Maruthi Omni van bearing registration No. KA-18/Z-1818 came with high speed from Koppa side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to M.S.D.M. Hospital, Koppa. Thereafter he was taken to KMV hospital, Manipal, for further treatment. Contending that despite treatment, he sustained permanent physical disability leading to loss of earning capacity, he filed petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
-: 4 :-
5. After service of notice by the Tribunal, respondent No.1-Owner-cum-driver of Maruthi Omini remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2-insurer of Maruthi Omni appeared and filed written statement denying the contents of the petition. It admitted issuance of insurance policy valid from 13.06.2007 to 12.06.2008, but submitted that its liability was subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It contended that the owner did not intimate about the accident. It also contended that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of petitioner himself and submitted that petitioner is not entitled for any compensation.
Respondent No.3-insurer of the petitioner's motorcycle also filed objection statement opposing the claim petition on similar grounds as raised by respondent No.2.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for its consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident occurred on 30.6.2007 at 11.15 -: 5 :- A.M. while he was proceeding in his Bajaj Caliber motorcycle bearing Regn.
No.KA-18/K-5652 due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Omni Van bearing Regn.No.KA-18/Z-1818 by the 1st respondent with excessive speed, thereby suffered grievous injuries?
2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner himself?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What order?
7. In support of his case, petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.29. Further examined two more witnesses were examined as C.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked document as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. On behalf of respondent No.2, Administrative Officer of the insurance company was examined as RW-1 and he got marked copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R.1.
8. On 20.04.2013, the Tribunal passed an award answering issue Nos.1 and 3 in the affirmative, Issue No.2 in the negative and issue No.4 as per final order assessing compensation of Rs.10,36,000/- payable by -: 6 :- respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
9. We have heard learned counsel Sri. Vinod Gowda for appellant through video conference and Sri. B.C.Shivanne Gowda, for Sri. A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for respondent no.2, who appeared in person.
10. Learned counsel Sri. Vinod Gowda, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meager and calls for enhancement under all the heads. It was submitted that the petitioner sustained the following injuries:
1) one contusion over right temporal, region 4 cms X 3 cms;
2) Scratch wound over right side of face 2 cms X 2cms.
3) One scratch wound over left small toe;
4) Fracture of left forearm;
5) Ligament tear over right knee joint;
6) C.T.Scan showed signs of subarchnoid hemorrhage, cerebral contusion.
7) Defuse cerebral oedema.
-: 7 :-
11. It was submitted that due to injuries sustained in the accident, petitioner suffers from dementia, abstraction and visuo-spatial construction impairment etc., Hence, it was submitted that award of only a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering was on the lower side and sought enhancement.
It was submitted that as per Ex.P.8-discharge summary and Ex.C1 - disability certificate, the petitioner suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. The petitioner was working in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where he was earning $240US, when the exchange rate was $1 US = Rs.40.59/- on the date of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal committed a grave error in assessing his monthly income at Rs.20,000/- only. The Tribunal also erred in considering a meager 20% as loss of earning capacity. In addition, it was submitted that petitioner was an inpatient for more than 155 days and award of Rs.15,000/- by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate. Likewise, award of a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards loss of amenities and the award of Rs.1,75,000/- towards medical expenses -: 8 :- is also very meager. Hence, on these grounds the petitioner sought enhancement.
12. On the other hand, respondent No.2 - insurance company opposed any enhancement and submitted that the compensation determined by the Tribunal was just and proper.
13. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has held that accident in question is due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Maruti Omni. There is no challenge to the award by the insurer. But, petitioner is seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that extent of disability suffered is higher than that considered by the Tribunal. Likewise, his monthly income was higher than considered by Tribunal. Thus the dispute is with regard to entitlement of petitioner for higher compensation on above grounds, but occurrence of accident involving petitioner's motorcycle and Maruti Omni van belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 -: 9 :- due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 is not in dispute.
14. On hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of material on record, following points would arise for our consideration:
i) Whether petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation?
ii) What order?
15. The petitioner in this case has stated that he was aged about 45 years as on the date of the accident. A perusal of Ex.P.9 - discharge summary, age of the petitioner is mentioned as 45 years. The multiplier corresponding to it is '14'. It has been further mentioned in Ex.P.9 that petitioner was diagnosed for Axis-I delirium, superimposed on dementia, diabetes mellitus, hypertension with the patient complaining of anger outbursts, aggressive behavior etc.,
16. Dr. Mahesh R Gowda, of Spandana Health Care has issued Ex.C1 - disability certificate assessing the permanent physical disability of the petitioner -: 10 :- about 40%. The same is supported by Ex.C.-2 a neuro-physiological assessment report 15.02.2013 issued by a clinical physiologist of the same hospital.
The Test findings read as follows:
"His performance in relation to different areas is as follows:
Attention was found to be adequate. Scanning, Kinetic Melody and Ideational Fluency were found to be impaired. There was no evidence of psychomotor perseveration.
Expressive Speech was adequate. Abstraction was fond to be mildly impaired. Working Memory (delayed response) and Visuo- Spatial construction was found to be moderately impaired. Personality change has been reported and observed.
Verbal learning and Memory found to be impaired. Visual Integration was found to be moderately impaired. Comprehension was found to be adequate. There were no signs of Ideomotor, Ideational and Spatial Apraxia; Visual, Colour or finger or Tactile Agnosia. Constructional Apraxia and Unilateral Spatial Agnosia were absent. Planning was found to be mildly impaired.
IMPRESSION:
The above neuropsychological findings are indicative of involvement of the Bi lateral fronto- temporal impairment.
Recommendation:
1. Psychoeducation.
2. Neuropsychological rehabilitation."
17. The petitioner has claimed that he was working in Abu-Dhabi, Damascus, Syria. In view of -: 11 :- disabilities suffered, it is impossible for him to secure employment, either in India or abroad.
18. Though, the assessment of physical disability is 40% herein, in the case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajaykumar reported in 2011(1) SCC 343, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"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 accidents 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 -: 12 :- 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, 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 -: 13 :- 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.
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 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. and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.)
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, -: 14 :- 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 ability (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 -: 15 :- 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 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 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 -: 16 :- 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 Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic 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 -: 17 :- unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving 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 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 percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as 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 -: 18 :- can give evidence only in regard 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."
19. Following the said principles, in this case it is seen from Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 that petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability. The accident occurred on 30.06.2007; whereas, Ex.C1 was issued on 15.02.2013, after examining the petitioner on 12/13.02.2013. The disability is found to be permanent physical disability.
20. Considering the nature and extent of disability assessed by the Medical Expert in Ex.C1 @ 40%, it would be safe to consider the loss of earning capacity of the petitioner at 40%.
21. In order to substantiate his income, petitioner has produced Ex.P.5 - account statement issued by State Bank of India for the period from 01.01.2002 to 12.06.2012. He has also produced account statement - Ex.P.6 issued by Syndicate Bank for the period from 27.11.2006 to 11.06.2012. Ex.P.17, dated 07.05.1993 issued by Attila Dogan Company, indicates that the -: 19 :- petitioner was employed as Senior Operator, for its operations in Syria. Ex.P.19 issued by United Engineering Services, Damascus, Syria, dated 09.09.1992 also indicates that the petitioner was employed as Senior Production Operator on monthly payment of $1000 US.
22. At the time of the accident, petitioner has stated that he was working with Amec Spie, in Abu-Dhabi, UAE. As per Ex.P.-24, letter of assignment dated 13.06.2006 issued to the petitioner, his salary per day was $240 US, plus other allowances with effect from 01.06.2006. Since accident has occurred on 30.06.2007, assessment of the income of the petitioner will have to be based on Ex.P.24. The conversion rate of US $ during 2007 was Rs.40.59. Hence, the claimed monthly income of the petitioner would be:
$240US X Rs.40.59 X 22 days = Rs.2,14,315/-, which is excluding other allowances.
23. However, the Tribunal has taken his monthly income on notional basis at Rs.20,000/-, which is grossly inadequate considering the long duration of the petitioner's employment abroad. At the same time, however, it has to be remembered that the petitioner was working in a foreign nation, economic conditions of which cannot be -: 20 :- compared with those prevailing in India. There is absolutely no evidence available with regard to the extent of personal expenses. Though, there is some evidence to support the remittances made by the petitioner during the period of employment abroad, the same is not proportionate to the monthly income of the petitioner. There is no evidence regarding the taxes applicable to income. It is also seen that petitioner was employed on specific projects for installation/commissioning, which cannot either be considered as regular employment or continuous. The payment offered for such specific work will be considerably higher than regular employment. Hence, some amount of guesswork is indispensable to arrive at a just compensation in such cases. In our view, if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month is considered as his income, it would be just and proper. Hence, loss of future earning capacity of the petitioner would be:
Loss of earning per month:
Rs.1,00,000/- X 40% (Loss of earning capacity) = Rs.40,000/-p.m. Total loss of future income:
Rs.40,000/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.67,20,000/-.
The same is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of future earning.-: 21 :-
24. Considering the nature and number of injuries, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' instead of Rs.64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has examined the bills produced towards 'medical expenses' and awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-. We do not see any reason to enhance the same.
25. He has submitted that injured - petitioner has taken treatment in KMC Hospital at Manipal and Dr. A.V Baliga Memorial Hospital Udupi. He has also treated at Spandana Hospital Bengaluru. It is stated that the petitioner was an indoor patient for 155 days. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards 'attendant charges, diet, and other incidental expenses' instead of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
26. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner must have lost earning during treatment and rest period for four months, and awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards 'loss of income during laid up period'. Since we have assessed his monthly income at Rs.1,00,000/-, the 'loss of earning during laid up period' is enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/-. -: 22 :-
27. While awarding compensation towards "loss of amenities", keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra), sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded by Tribunal is found to be meager, same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, as the petitioner would not be able to lead normal life and enjoy activities which he would have enjoyed like a common man.
28. Thus, petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.44,82,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization under the following heads:-
i) Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000
ii) Medical expenses Rs. 1,75,000
iii) Attendant, Diet & other Rs. 1,00,000
Incidental expenses
iv) Future loss of earning Rs.67,20,000
capacity
v) Loss of income during laid up Rs. 4,00,000
period
vi) Loss of amenities in life Rs. 1,00,000
Total Rs.75,70,000
29. For the foregoing reasons, point No.1 is
answered in favour of the petitioner and he is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.75,70,000/-. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stand modified in the terms indicated herein. -: 23 :-
Respondent No.2 - insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation as per the above award along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
Out of the of total compensation, 75% of the amount shall be kept in the name of appellant- petitioner in any Post Office deposit or Nationalized Bank Deposit for a period of seven years. The deposit shall not be encumbered in any manner. The petitioner will be entitled to withdraw interest periodically. Balance amount shall be released in favour of the appellant after due identification.
Appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. Parties to bear their respective costs. Registry to transmit the original record to concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Psg*