Jharkhand High Court
Lakshman Kumar Das vs M/S Mahato & Mand Construction Company on 10 August, 2021
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 393 of 2018
-----
Lakshman Kumar Das ....... Appellant
Versus
1.M/s Mahato & Mand Construction Company, Jodhadih More, Chas
2.M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. ......Respondents ..........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Karan, Advocate
Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
03/Dated: 10/08/2021.
1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant/injured, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Karan has submitted that claimant/injured (Lakshman Kumar Das) has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award dated 09.03.2018, passed by learned District Judge VIII-cum-MACT, Dhanbad, in Title (M.V.) Suit No.231 of 2014 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,18,483/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. on 07.05.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Karan has further submitted that injured being a minor has sustained a serious injury in a motor vehicle accident on 25.03.2014 as dashed by a Hywa Truck bearing registration No.JH10U-1201 from behind due to which injured/claimant/appellant sustained grievous injuries on his left leg, which was later on amputated below knee and the medical certificate issued by the Government Medical Board, Dhanbad has been brought on record and marked as Exhibit-1. The victim/appellant has suffered permanent disability of 85%, but the learned Tribunal has considered that because of amputation of left leg below the knee, the person has suffered 85% disability of the limb. As per the Schedule-I Part-II of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 Item No.20 and 21 of the Schedule-I, the functional or percentage of loss earning capacity is 50% and learned Tribunal has also considered the same to be 50%. The learned -2- Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the victim, who was aged about 15 years, a student of Class-VIII at the time of accident on 25.03.2014 as Rs.3,000/- per month, which was multiplied with 12 to consider annual income of Rs.36,000/- and 50% of the loss of earning comes to Rs.18,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award ought to have considered the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, at paras 5 to 23, the same may be profitably quoted hereunder:-
"5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
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).
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 -3- 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.
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] ) -4-
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 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 -5- 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 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)
-6-
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 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)
22. We may in this context refer to the difficulties faced by claimants in securing the presence of busy Surgeons or treating Doctors who treated them, for giving evidence. Most of them are reluctant to appear before Tribunals for obvious reasons either because their entire day is likely to be wasted in attending the Tribunal to give evidence in a single case or because they are not shown any priority in recording evidence or because the claim petition is filed at a place far away from the place where the treatment was given. Many a time, the claimants are -7- reluctant to take coercive steps for summoning the Doctors who treated them, out of respect and gratitude towards them or for fear that if forced to come against their wishes, they may give evidence which may not be very favorable. This forces the injured claimants to approach `professional' certificate givers whose evidence most of the time is found to be not satisfactory.
23. The Tribunals should realise that a busy Surgeon may be able to save ten lives or perform twenty surgeries in the time he spends to attend the Tribunal to give evidence in one accident case. Many busy Surgeons refuse to treat medico-legal cases out of apprehension that their practice and their current patients will suffer, if they have to spend their days in Tribunals giving evidence about past patients. The solution does not lie in coercing the Doctors to attend the Tribunal to give evidence. The solution lies in recognizing the valuable time of Doctors and accommodating them. Firstly, efforts should be made to record the evidence of the treating Doctors on commission, after ascertaining their convenient timings. Secondly, if the Doctors attend the Tribunal for giving evidence, their evidence may be recorded without delay, ensuring that they are not required to wait. Thirdly, the Doctors may be given specific time for attending the Tribunal for giving evidence instead of requiring them to come at 10.30 A.M. or 11.00 A.M. and wait in the Court Hall. Fourthly, in cases where the certificates are not contested by the respondents, they may be marked by consent, thereby dispensing with the oral evidence. These small measures as also any other suitable steps taken to ensure the availability of expert evidence, will ensure assessment of just compensation and will go a long way in demonstrating that Courts/Tribunals show concern for litigants and witnesses."
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,18,483/- only along with interest @ 6% per annum, which may be enhanced considering that the entire life of a student gets affected because of the said accident.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that there is delay of 21 days in preferring the appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A. No.6408 of 2018 has been preferred, as such, in a benevolent legislation, the aforesaid delay may be condoned.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Alok Lal has opposed the prayer and submitted that loss of one limb cannot be compensated in terms of money, but the court has to consider whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable compensation or not? Since the learned Tribunal has considered every aspects of the matter and granted a sum of Rs.7,18,483/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 07.08.2018 till the date of indemnifying the award, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has also opposed the delay of 21 days in preferring the appeal and submitted that delay may not be condoned as the appeal being devoid of merit, this Court may not enhance the compensation, as the interest has been granted as per the prevalent rate of interest of the nationalized bank, as such, this Court may -8- not interfere with the same.
9. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and considering it is a benevolent legislation, the delay of 21 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
10. I.A. No.6408 of 2018 is hereby allowed.
11. Heard, learned counsel for the parties, perused the material brought on record including the impugned judgment.
12. The admitted facts of this case is that claimant/appellant/injured sustained 85% permanent disability because of motor accident caused by Hywa Truck bearing No.JH10U-1201 on 25.03.2014, the said Hywa was insured before the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. The appellant was a student of Class-VIII, aged about 15 years at the time of accident now he has attained majority and his left leg was amputated below knee. The Government Medical Board, Dhanbad has assessed his disability to be 85% as per Exhibit-1. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the Schedule-I of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has considered that case of the claim falls in the category of item 20 or 21, whereby the claimant has suffered 50% of loss of future earning capacity. The learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.3,000/- and considered the annual income of Rs.36,000/- per annum as the victim was a student of Class-VIII, aged about 15 years at that time and thus, considered the future loss of earning @ 50% to be Rs.18,000/-.
13. Accordingly, this Court considers the annual income of the injured/claimant/appellant of Rs.3,000/- per month.
14. Accordingly, this Court considers the compensation, in view of para 6 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar (Supra) Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expense relating to treatment, which has considered by the learned Tribunal to be Rs.24,483/- including treatment hospitalization and medicines i.e. Exhibits-2 to 2/3 and Exhibits -3 to 3/1.
So far, transportation, the same has not been granted by the learned Tribunal, but this Court grants Rs.5,000/- for the same and also expenses -9- for nourishing food has not been granted, which is granted Rs.25,000/- as the persons left leg has been amputated below knee.
So far miscellaneous expenditure i.e. the attendant charge during that period has been granted to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, as this Court is of the opinion that injured was admitted for a period of 15 days in the hospital, as such, attendant charge is enhanced up to Rs.25,000/-.
(ii) Loss of earning (and other gains) which the injury would have made had he not been injured comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment as Rs.3,000/- as injured/claimant admitted for 15 days in Central Hospital from 25.03.2014 to 09.04.2014.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability is concerned, this Court considers that it would just and fair to equate the same as per the Schedule-I Part-II of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 of Item Nos.20 and 21 I.e amputation of left leg below the knee for which percentage for the loss of earning capacity is 50%. The compensation under the loss of future earnings is calculated as follows:-
Rs.3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000/- x 50% = Rs.18,000/- The injured/claimant falls between the age group of 15-20, as such, in view the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. DTC & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 at para 42, the multiplier of 18 is applicable. Then the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability comes to Rs.18,000/- x 18 = Rs.3,24,000/-. 40% future prospect i.e. Rs.3,24,000/- x 40% = Rs.4,53,600/-, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs, Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at Para 59.4.
(iii) Future medical expenses already granted @ Rs.50,000/- as the claimant may get medical assistance for having artificial limb.
15. Now non-pecuniary damage (General Damages):-
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injury has been granted by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, which this Court has enhanced to be consistent, in view of -10- the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2014 (14) SCC 396, as the loss of Rs.4 lacs as the injury is up to 60%.
If the disability is above 10% up to 30% to the whole body Rs.3 lacs, up to 60% Rs.4 lacs, up to 90% Rs.5 lacs and above 90% to be Rs.6 lacs. The permanent disability up to 85% and the functional disability up to 50%, as such, compensation will be granted Rs. 4 lacs.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.1,50,000/-, which is enhanced to make it consistent by this Court to Rs.2 lacs, as the injured is a boy of aged of 15 years.
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity), this Court is not granting any compensation as no evidence has been brought on record that because of such accident the loss of expectation of life has reduced as NIL.
16. Re-computation of the compensation is as follows:-
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, Rs.24,483/-
hospitalization, medicines
Nourishing food and miscellaneous (Rs.25,000/- +
expenditure Rs.25,000/- +
Transportation Rs.5,000/-)
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) Total= Rs.79,483/-
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the Under
injured would have made had he not been
injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of a. Rs.3,000/-.
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of b. Rs.3,000/- x 12 x18 =
permanent disability Rs.6,48,000/-
and 40% Future
Prospect=Rs.2,59,200/- +
Rs.6,48,000/- =
Rs.9,07,200/-)
Total Rs.4,53,600/-
(50% functional disability)
(iii) Future medical expenses Rs.50,000/- (artificial limb)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma Rs.4,00,000/-
(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.11,83,083/- along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum.
-11-
17. Accordingly, the total compensation awarded Rs.11,83,083/-.
18. The entire amount calculated herein shall be Rs.11,83,083/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
19. However, the amount already paid either under Section 140 MV Act and pursuant to the Award passed by the learned Tribunal shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid to the applicant/injured/claimant within a reasonable time by the respondent no.2- M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. as the accident is of dated 25.03.2014.
20. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) sandeep/R.S.