Gurmit Singh vs Sahil Khurana and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The appeal is filed seeking for enhancement of compensation assessed for injuries suffered by the claimant. The claimant had fracture of his shoulder and also fracture of his leg where a surgical intervention had been made for reducing the fracture. The doctor had assessed the disability at 20% and certified that it was permanent. He was a daily rated worker and the Court took the functional disability that could have impacted as earning skill at 10% and taking the income at Rs. 3,500/- per month on an average, adopted a multiplier of 11 dependent on the age of the claimant. The Court had also awarded compensation for the loss of earning during the period of treatment. Taking the average income to be Rs. 3,500/- for three months, it has provided for the following heads of claim:-

The learned counsel argues that he was a skilled worker and his income must have been taken as Rs. 5,000/-. He also has a grievance that the Court''s assessment of functional loss as resulting in loss of income at only 10% was not proper. An assessment of disability is invariably dependent on the loss of functional ability of the limbs which had been fractured in this case. If the fracture had been reduced, but there had been a reduction of range of movement, the assessment could be with reference to such reduction. The functional disability may not at all times correspond with similar percentage of loss of earning skill as well. The Court was, therefore, justified in scaling down the loss of earning capacity at 10% and it has done what is legally permissible by taking the income at Rs. 3,500/- reckoning the loss by applying 10% at Rs. 3,500/- and adopting a multiplier of 11 suitable to the age. Where no definite evidence was forthcoming and even if the case were to be dependent only on assertion that he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, an assessment of an average income for such a person at Rs. 3,500/-cannot be said to be unrealistic and unfair. The manner of assessment of loss of earning capacity has been done on an appropriate legal basis. The Court has also provided for Rs. 25,000/-towards pain and suffering which I would think is a fair assessment considering that he had a surgical intervention. I find no error in the overall assessment made by the Tribunal and would find no reason to interfere with the same. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.