Amar vs Savita Ravindra Potadar

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The appeal coming on for admission is considered for final disposal as the issue involved falls under a narrow compass, namely, whether the income of the appellant could have been adopted at Rs. 4,000/- per month, when he was a driver holding a licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle.

It is the case of the appellant that he is no longer able to continue with his avocation, as the injuries are of such a nature that he is permanently disabled and he is unable to drive any more. The Tribunal having taken the income at Rs. 4,000/- per month, the compensation awarded has been drastically reduced and it is in that regard that the present appeal is filed.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was directed to be present in Court and he is now present in Court and as can be seen, is unable to walk and stand without the support of crutches and he is not able to walk freely at all and further the fact that he is no longer able to drive is evident from the fact that he has surrendered his licence to the concerned Regional Transport Officer and he has produced an acknowledgement in this regard, which is also produced before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation.

The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 however would vehemently resist the appeal and would submit that the accident was of the year 2007 and even if the appellant is permanently disabled, the contention that there is 100% loss of earning capacity cannot be readily accepted as there are other avocations in which the appellant can gainfully engage himself and therefore the contention that the earning capacity is lost by 100% and the contention that the monthly income of the appellant ought to have been taken at a rate higher than Rs. 4,000/- is also not tenable. It is contended that the income taken is generous and does not require any enhancement.

Therefore, the short point for consideration is whether the monthly income that has been adopted for the purpose of computing the compensation was reasonable and realistic. On the face of it, even though the accident was of the year 2007, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was justified in adopting Rs. 4,000/- as the income of a driver of a heavy goods vehicle. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that a driver of even a light motor vehicle would be paid much more than Rs. 10,000/- as on date and in the year 2007 even if he would not have been paid Rs. 10,000/-, it certainly would not be only Rs. 4,000/- and hence it can straight way be said, that the amount taken as the monthly income of the appellant ought to be enhanced. At the same time, since the appellant receives a lumpsum amount, which should enable him to pursue some other avocation, if not as a driver, it would have to be scaled up but not to a limit being the actual monthly income that he would have earned. Therefore, to balance equities, if the monthly income is adopted at Rs. 6,000/- instead of Rs. 4,000/-, interest of justice would be met. Accordingly, the monthly income shall be taken at Rs. 6,000/- for the purposes of computation of the compensation in which event the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,83,514/- and applicable interest shall be paid on the said amount, one month from the date of accident. Therefore, the substantial question of law as regards adoption of income on the basis that there is substantial loss of earning capacity of the appellant stands answered in favour of the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.