Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The petitioner claims to have obtained treatment from the Government Medical College, Jammu. She was also treated at Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar, where she was operated upon and her right arm up to shoulder level and two fingers of left foot were amputated. The petitioner suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 90 percent. It is also stated that the FIR No. 0021/2021 dated 08.04.2021 in respect of the aforesaid incident was registered and the charge-sheet has also been filed against the respondent No. 5 and one Romesh Lal (lineman) for commission of offences under Sections 336, 337 and 338 IPC. The petitioner has placed on record the discharge summary and also the bills in respect of the expenses incurred on her treatment. The petitioner has claimed the compensation on account of permanent disablement to the extent of 90 percent suffered by her, requirement of attendant and also for the Bionic Prosthesis. The petitioner has also claimed compensation for mental and physical shock, loss of amenities, on account of loss of expectation of life and on account of inconvenience, hardship and discomfort in life.

8. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the FIR and also the charge-

sheet filed against both Malkit Singh and Romesh Lal officials of the respondents and relying upon the statements, the Enquiry Committee opined that there was no negligence on part of the officials of the Power Development Department. The petitioner has suffered injuries is duly substantiated by the certificate issued by the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Health and Family Welfare, Jammu dated 21.10.2021. It clearly establishes beyond doubt that the petitioner has suffered 90 percent disability i.e. 85%+5%.

12. So far as the petitioner is concerned, she was 13 years of age at the time of accident i.e. on 03.09.2020 and on the said date notification dated 26.10.2017 issued by the Labour and Employment Department, Government of J&K prescribing the minimum wages of Rs350/ per day for skilled workman was in vogue and as the petitioner was a student at that time, so she would have acquired higher qualification in future, as such, the notional income of the petitioner shall be as per the wages payable to the skilled workmen. As such, the monthly wages would be Rs. 10,500/-. The monthly income is required to be enhanced by 40 percent taking into consideration the prospects of enhancement of earnings in future in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and another" reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, the monthly income would be Rs. 14,700/-. The multiplier applicable would be 18. Since the petitioner has suffered 90 percent disability Thus the total loss of future earnings would be Rs. 28,57,680/-.Record further depicts that the petitioner has undergone treatment at Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar and the petitioner has placed on record the bills in respect of expenses incurred on her treatment for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Accordingly, she is also held entitled to an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The petitioner has placed on record the quotation for bionic prosthesis which as per the quotation, the petitioner may require, meaning thereby that she may or may not require as such the petitioner is held not entitled to the said amount of Rs. 35,00,000/ as now and she may approach this court in future in the event the petitioner requires the same. But from the quotation it is evident that she is having prosthetic limb, as such, she is entitled to Rs.5.00 lacs for maintenance of artificial limb. She may require attendant as well for whole of her life and also because disablement, the marriage prospects of the petitioner have reduced. 

                                       Total            Rs. 60,57,680/-
                                       Rounded of       Rs. 60,57,700/-
(See Kajal v. Jagdish Chand" (2020) 4 SCC 413, and Ayush v.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd." (2022) 7 SCC 738 & Mohd. Sabeer vs. UP SRTC, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701).

14. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case as in the said case both the hands were amputated and the injured had suffered 100 percent disability.