Sri Kumaresh vs The Divn.Manager National ...

of the accident, the appellant was aged 20 years

and claimed to be earning Rs.6000/- per month as

salary as a building centering worker.

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) held

that in motor accidents cases, strict proof of

rash and negligence need not be established as

was required in criminal cases, and accordingly

3

concluded that it was clearly established that

the appellant sustained injuries as a result of

the accident. The appellant had sustained

fracture to both bones of lower 1/3 tibia and

fibula, and the right leg below knee was

amputated. Thus, the MACT awarded Rs.50,000/- for

pain and suffering. Due to the accident, the

appellant was treated as both an in-patient and

out-patient, and considering the nature of

injuries, MACT awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head

of loss of income during treatment period. MACT

also awarded Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses to

the appellant even though no medical bills or

prescriptions were produced. MACT assessed

4

disability of the whole body at 20%, and took

monthly salary to be Rs.3,500/- and hence

assessed loss of future income at Rs.1,51,200/-

(Rs.3500 X 12 X 18 X 20/100). MACT also awarded

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects

and Rs.10,000/- toward frustration, unhappiness

and discomfort, Rs.10,000/- towards transport and

conveyance and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

amenities of life, Rs.5000/- towards attendant

charges and Rs.10,000/- towards food and

nourishment. Accordingly, total compensation

payable to the appellant amounted to

Rs.2,81,200/- with costs and simple interest at

6% p.a. It was payable jointly and severally by

5

the owner and Insurance Company respectively.

However, in view of the insurance policy only the

Insurance Company was liable to pay the entire

compensation.

1. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal to

the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court

partly allowed the appeal and modified the

compensation awarded by the MACT as follows:-

Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/-

for loss of income during period of treatment,

Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.3,78,000/-

(Rs.3500 X 12 X 18 X 50%) for loss of earning

capacity and loss of future earnings, Rs.75,000/-

6 for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life,

including loss of marital prospects, Rs.10,000/-

for conveyance charges, Rs.5,000/- towards

attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards food

and nourishment. Thus, total compensation was

enhanced to Rs.5,48,000/- with 6% interest p.a.

payable from date of the claim petition till

realization.

1. Being still aggrieved, the appellant preferred

the present appeal for further enhancement of

compensation. Having gone through the material on

record and after hearing the parties, we are of

7

the opinion that the compensation amount deserves

to be enhanced.

1. We note that before the MACT, the appellant

contended that he was earning a monthly salary of

Rs.6000/- as a centering worker. He produced a

salary certificate to that effect. Further, his

employer also stated that the appellant was

working under him as a building centering worker

for the last two years and was drawing a salary

of Rs.6,000/- per month. The appellant was also

getting boarding and lodging in the house of his

employer. However, from the cross-examination of

his employer, it does not appear that the

8

appellant was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. We

accept that the monthly income of the appellant

cannot exceed Rs.4,000/-.

1. High Court arrived at a disability of 50% by

looking into Schedule-I to the Workmen

Compensation Act, 1923, where percentage of loss

of earning capacity due to amputation below knee

with stump exceeding 12.70 cms. was determined at

50%. In the present case, the doctor had assessed

permanent residual physical disability of about

70% of right lower limb, which is about 35% of

the whole body.

9 1. It is clear that the appellant is a manual

labourer and loss of his leg below the knee will

drastically affect his ability to perform

building centering work, or even any other manual

labour. Hence, we sustain the disability

assessment by the High Court. As the appellant

is aged 20 years, a multiplier of 18 has been

correctly selected.

1. Accordingly, compensation for loss of future

earnings amounts to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.4000 X 12 X

18 X 50%).

1 1. The appellant is aged just 20 years and one of

his legs has been amputated below the knee. It

will not only severely affect his future

prospects of earning, but he will also have to be

permanently disabled for life and suffer the

necessary discomforts accompanying living without

a leg. It greatly minimizes his chances of

getting married. In light of all this, we enhance

amount awarded for loss of amenities and

enjoyment of life, including loss of marital

prospects, to Rs.3,00,000/-. We also enhance the

amount awarded for medical expenses for his whole

life to Rs.1,00,000/-, conveyance charges to

Rs.50,000/- and for food and nourishment to

1

Rs.50,000/- considering the nature of injuries

sustained by the appellant. Compensation awarded

by the High Court under the other heads is

sustained.

1. Accordingly, the break-up of compensation is as

follows:

Pain and suffering -Rs. 50,000/-

Loss of income during treatment -Rs. 15,000/-

Medical expenses for whole life -Rs.1,00,000/-

Loss of future earnings -Rs.4,32,000/-

Loss of amenities & enjoyment of

Life Including loss of marital

Prospects -Rs.3,00,000/-

1

Conveyance charges -Rs. 50,000/-

Food and nourishment -Rs. 50,000/-

TOTAL -Rs.9,97,000/-

1. Accordingly, compensation is enhances to

Rs.9,97,000/-, which we round off to

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs). Interest shall

be payable on the enhanced amount at 9% p.a.

1. It appears that by an order of this Court dated

30.3.2011, the name of the driver of the

offending vehicle was deleted from the array of

parties. Thus, compensation shall be paid to the

1

appellant jointly and severally by the

respondents.

1. The appeal is partly allowed.

1. No order as to costs.

.......................J.

(G.S. SINGHVI)

.......................J.

New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

April 29, 2011

1