Naveen Kumar vs Mahender Pal And Anr

Sr. No.,Head,Amount awarded

1,Medical bills/treatment,"Rs.2,79,976/-

2,Pain & suffering/mental agony,"Rs.25,000/-

3,Loss of income for six months,"Rs.24,000/-

4,Permanent disability,"Rs.1,60,000/-

,Total,"Rs.4,88,976/-

,Rounded off by Tribunal,"Rs.4,89,000/-

the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and",,

recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and,,

bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful",,

activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident.,,

The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which",,

are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Disabilities Actâ€,",,

for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they",,

can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.,,

The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a",,

particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not",,

the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a,,

percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent",,

disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole",,

body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed",,

in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.,,

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 permanent disability",,

will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.,,

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.â€​,,

In the facts of the present case the Tribunal has taken note of two Disability Certificates adduced by the claimant and proved on record i.e. Ex. P-1,,

and Ex. P-2 which reflected a disability to the extent of 50% of the right limb/leg and 30% disability in vision respectively and has awarded amounts of,,

Rs.1 lakh and Rs.60,000/- on account of the permanent disability reflected in the certificates at Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. By taking the monthly earnings",,

of the claimant/injured to be Rs.4,000/-, an amount of Rs.24,000/- has been awarded towards loss of income over a period of six months on account of",,

the accident and the consequent hospitalization/recuperation. A total amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal for the pain and",,

suffering as also agony endured by the claimant/appellant.,,

In the considered view of this Court the compensation amount would require to be revisited and reassessed in the light of dictum laid down by the,,

Apex Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra).,,

The Tribunal in its award dated 18.9.2012 and while computing the compensation amount has mechanically awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for each",,

percent of disability i.e. Rs.1 lakh in lieu of 50% disability element reflected in Ex. P-1 and Rs.60,000/- towards 30% disability reflected in Ex. P-2.",,

It is by now well settled that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. The Tribunal ought to have,,

assessed the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured/claimant and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms,,

of percentage of the income, it ought to be quantified in terms of money to arrive at the future loss of earning by applying the standard multiplier",,

method employed to determine loss of dependency. Such aspect has been completely overlooked and ignored by the Tribunal.,,

The claim petition had been filed seeking a compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lakh. Claimant/injured had asserted that he was 20 years of age as on,,

the date of accident, was able bodied and was pursuing his studies. It was further averred that he also used to indulge in agricultural work and was",,

earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Claimant had filed his affidavit Ex. P-6/A deposing therein that immediately after the accident he was removed to Civil",,

Hospital, Sirsa but on account of the serious and grievous injuries suffered, he had been referred to Jindal Hospital, Hisar and wherein he had been",,

admitted for three different spells i.e. from 15.1.2011 to 11.2.2011, 21.2.2011 to 3.3.2011 and 29.6.2011 to 5.7.2011. During such period of",,

hospitalization he had undergone repeated surgical procedures. Claimant had examined Dr. Pawan Kumar, Medical Officer as PW-1 and who",,

deposed that he was a Member of the Board of Doctors/Handicap Board and who had examined Naveen Kumar on 23.11.2011 and had assessed the,,

disability element to the extent of 50% on account of decreased range of motion of right knee and right hip due to fracture of right thigh and leg and,,

malunion of right tibia bone. The Disability Certificate in such regard was duly proved as Ex. P-1. Furthermore, claimant had examined Dr. Rajesh",,

Chaudhary, Eye Surgeon as PW-2 and who had deposed that he was also a Member of the Handicap Board and had examined the claimant on",,

23.11.2011 and assessed his visual disability to the extent of 30% on account of using a prosthetic eye (right eye). Disability Certificate in this regard,,

was duly proved as Ex. P-2. That apart, claimant had examined Satyawan, Record Keeper as PW-3 and who proved medical bills Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-",,

Gaurav, Computer Operator was examined as PW-4 and who proved medical bills Ex. P-5 to Ex. P-51. Claimant had further tendered in evidence",,

medical bills at Ex. P-61 to P-197 and medical reimbursement forms as Ex. P-57 to Ex. P-60 as also copy of MLR Mark-A. The total of such medical,,

bills was Rs.2,79,976/- which have been accepted and the requisite amount has been awarded by the Tribunal.",,

The appellant/claimant had himself asserted his age to be 20 years as on the date of accident and had claimed to be pursuing his studies. Even though,",,

he had asserted that he was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month from engaging in agricultural work but no evidence had been adduced to",,

substantiate such plea. Under such circumstances and to compute compensation towards the head of loss of future earning on account of permanent,,

disability, it would be imperative to assess the notional income. Counsel for the parties are ad idem that as on the date of accident, the minimum wages",,

admissible to an unskilled worker as per Haryana Govt. Notification were Rs.4340/- per month. The notional monthly income of the claimant, as such,",,

is assessed as Rs.4340/- By applying the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay,,

Sethi and others, 2017 (4) R.C.R. (Civil), 1009 this Court would award 40% addition in income towards future prospects. A multiplier of 18 would be",,

applied keeping in view the age of the appellant as on the date of accident and as per guidelines furnished in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi,,

Transport Corporation & another, 2009 (3) R.C.R (Civil), 77.",,

Sr. No.,Head,Amount

1,"Loss of future earnings on account of

permanent disability","Rs.5,24,966/-

2,Medical bills/treatment charges,"Rs.2,79,976/-

3,Pain & suffering/mental agony,"Rs.1,50,000/-

4,Attendant charges,"Rs.20,000/-

5,Transportation charges,"Rs.10,000/-

6,Total,"Rs.9,84,942/-