LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, June 11, 2020

negligent driving of the bus driver who hit a lorry from behind. As a consequence of the injuries suffered, the left leg of the appellant had to be amputated. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,08,850/­. The High Court in appeal enhanced 1 the same to Rs.5,10,350/­. The appeal preferred by the respondent Corporation was dismissed.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2551 OF 2020
(arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 1738 of 2018)
SRI ANTHONY alias ANTHONY SWAMY ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is in appeal aggrieved by the order of the High
Court, claiming inadequacy of compensation granted to him in a
motor accident case.
3. The   appellant   was   travelling   in   a   bus   of   the   respondent
Corporation and met with an accident on 19.02.2010, due to rash
and negligent driving of the bus driver who hit a lorry from behind.
As   a   consequence   of   the   injuries   suffered,   the   left   leg   of   the
appellant   had   to   be   amputated.   The   Tribunal   awarded   a
compensation of Rs.4,08,850/­. The High Court in appeal enhanced
1
the same to Rs.5,10,350/­. The appeal preferred by the respondent
Corporation was dismissed. 
4. Shri   Ashwin   Kotemath,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant
submitted that the compensation enhanced by the High Court is
niggardly and grossly inadequate considering the nature of injuries
suffered.  The appellant was a painter by vocation. He had a daily
income of Rs.300/­ cumulated at Rs.9,000/­ per month, supported
by the evidence of his employer PW.2, which has been wrongly
rejected.  The permanent disability of the appellant contrary to the
evidence of PW.3, Dr. S. Ramachandra the treating Doctor, has been
wrongly fixed at 25% of the whole body without any reasoning to
support the same, in the nature of the injury, suffering, future
medical   treatment   and   loss   of   future   income   caused   to   the
appellant.
5. Shri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted
that the High Court has reasonably enhanced the compensation
and   it   calls   for   no   interference.   The   appellant   had   failed   to
substantiate   the   claimed  income   with   substantive  evidence.  The
2
extent   of   disability   suffered   has   been   adequately   assessed.   The
evidence  of  the  employer  and  the  treating  doctor  have  all  been
considered adequately.
6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.
The appellant was initially taken to the government hospital on the
date   of   the   accident   but   was   shifted   to   a   private   hospital   on
25.02.2010 where he remained as an inpatient till 16.09.2010 and
also underwent surgery requiring amputation of his left leg from
above   the   knee.     PW.3,   the   treating   doctor,   deposed   that   the
appellant had suffered Type III ‘B’ commuted fracture of Tibia and
Fibula   of   the   left   leg   with   an   active   infection   of   Chronic
Osteomyelitis   emanating   foul   smell   which   prevented   him   from
mixing   and   socialising   in   public.   There   was   no   alternative   to
amputation and fixation of an artificial leg. The physical disability
suffered by the appellant of the left lower limb was assessed at 75%
which was about 37.5% of the whole body. PW.3 further opined that
the appellant had suffered shortening of the left lower limb by 3
cms. He could not stand independently or walk without aid of a
walker or attendant. The appellant cannot sit cross legged, squat or
3
use an Indian toilet. He could not climb up and down a staircase.
The appellant was incapable of any manual work including painting.
The appellant who was 45 years of age, considering average life
expectancy   of   65   years   would   require   at   least   three   further
replacements of the artificial limb in his lifetime, the cost of which
was assessed at approximately between Rs.75,000 to Rs.1,50,000/­.
7.  The High Court enhanced the monthly income of the appellant
to   Rs.5,500/­.   He   has   been   awarded   a   sum   of   Rs.1,00,000/­
towards   pain   and   suffering   and   Rs.7,350/­   towards   medical
expenses along with Rs.21,000/­ for attendant charges.  The loss of
earnings during the period of treatment has been enhanced by the
High Court to Rs.66,000/­. Conveyance charges have been paid at
Rs.10,000/­.  We find no reason to interfere to the aforesaid extent.
8.  The physical disability of the appellant without any reasoning
has been assessed at 25% of the whole body with which we are
unable to concur. The compensation granted towards loss of future
earning   on   account   of   disability   at   Rs.2,31,000/­   is   considered
grossly inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case, as
4
also   the   compensation   of   Rs.50,000/­   towards   future   medical
expenses and only Rs.25,000/­ towards loss of amenities.   
9.  PW.3 had assessed the physical functional disability of the left
leg of the appellant at 75% and total body disability at 37.5%. The
High Court has considered it proper to assess the physical disability
at 25% of the whole body only. There is no discussion for this
reduction in percentage, much less any consideration of the nature
of permanent functional disability suffered by the appellant. The
extent of physical functional disability, in the facts of the case has
to   be   considered   in   a   manner   so   as   to   grant   just   and   proper
compensation to the appellant towards loss of future earning. The
earning capacity of the appellant as on the date of the accident
stands completely negated and not reduced.  He has been rendered
permanently incapable of working as a painter or do any manual
work. Compensation for loss of future earning therefore has to be
proper and  just to enable  him to  live a  life  of dignity and  not
compensation which is elusive.  If the 75% physical disability has
rendered   the   appellant   permanently   disabled   from   pursuing   his
normal vocation or any similar work, it is difficult to comprehend
5
the grant of compensation to him in ratio to the disability to the
whole body. The appellant is therefore held entitled to compensation
for loss of future earning based on his 75% permanent physical
functional disability recalculated with the salary of Rs.5,500/­with
multiplier of 14 at Rs. 6,93,000/­.
10.  Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCC 343
lucidly sets out the principles for grant of compensation in cases of
permanent physical functional disability as follows:
“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
6
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.  and  Yadava Kumar  v.  National Insurance Co.
Ltd.)
xxxx xxxx xxxx
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
7
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.
11. In  Nagarajappa   vs.   Divisional   Manager,   Oriental
Insurance   Company   Limited,  2011 (13) SCC 323, the physical
8
disability of the upper limb was determined as 68% in proportion to
22­23% of the whole­body.  This court opined as follows:
“9. On perusal of the doctor’s evidence with respect to the
nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, the appellant
was found, inter alia, to be suffering from the following
disabilities as a result of the accident—“gross deformity of
the left forearm, wrist and hand, wasting and weakness of
the muscles of the left upper limb and shortening of the
left upper limb by 1 cm”. As a result, the doctor stated
that the appellant could not work as a coolie and could
not also do any other manual work. The doctor assessed
permanent residual physical disability of the upper limb at
68% and 22­23% of the whole body.
10. The appellant is working as a manual labourer, for
which he requires the use of both his hands. The fact that
the   accident   has   left   him   with   one   useless   hand   will
severely affect his ability to perform his work as a coolie or
any other manual work, and this has also been certified
by the doctor. Thus, while awarding compensation it has
to be kept in mind that the appellant is to do manual work
for the rest of his life without full use of his left hand, and
this is bound to affect the quality of his work and also his
ability to find work considering his disability. Hence, while
computing   loss   of   future   income,   disability   should   be
taken   to   be   68%   and   not   20%,   as   was   done   by   the
Tribunal and the High Court. Our view is supported by the
ratio in Raj Kumar and from the fact that the appellant is
severely hampered and perhaps forever handicapped from
performing his occupation as a coolie.”
12. The High Court also erred in granting a sum of Rs.50,000/­
only   towards   future   medical   expenses.   PW.3   deposed   that   the
9
appellant would require three more replacements of the artificial left
leg during his lifetime.  We consider it proper to enhance the same
by Rs.2,50,000/­   in addition to that granted by the High Court.
The   compensation   granted   towards   loss   of   amenities   is   also
enhanced   to   Rs.50,000/­   considering   that   the   appellant   was
deprived of social mixing as deposed by PW.3.
13.  Thus,   the   compensation   awarded   by   the   High   Court   is
modified and recalculated as under:
Sr.
No.
Particulars Amount
(in Rs.)
1. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000
2. Medical expenses 7,350
3. Attendant charges 21,000
4. Loss   of   earnings   during   the   period   of
treatment
66,000
5. Conveyance charges 10,000
6. Loss   of   future   earnings   on   account   of
disability
6,93,000
7. Future medical expenses 2,50,000
8. Loss of amenities 50,000
TOTAL 11,97,350
10
14. We modify the award of the High Court accordingly to be paid
along with interest @ 6 per cent from the date of petition till the
realization.
15. The appeal is allowed.
.……………………….J.
(R.F. Nariman)
………………………..J.
   (Navin Sinha) 
………………………..J.
   (B.R. Gavai) 
New Delhi,
June 10, 2020
11