Somanath Das vs Rajkishore Das & Ors.

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-National Insurance

judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack.

of notice upon them was waived.

has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.

the Appellant has not been correctly determined.

In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Appellant-

other injuries all over his body.

Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, referring to the medical evidence brought on record during trial, contended before this Court that the doctor has opined that the Appellant-Claimant has sustained 75% permanent disability. He further contended that although it has been shown on record that the Appellant-Claimant has sustained 75% disability, however, the functional disability that matters for the purpose of determination of the quantum of compensation, ought to have been taken at 100% for the purpose of calculation of future earnings. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Appellant first referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another, reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 222 and submitted before this Court that although that was a case under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, however, taking into consideration the nature of the injury and the functional disability caused, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ultimately concluded that such disability is a permanent disability, as has been defined under the said Act. Thus, the victim in that case was not in a position to perform the work which he was performing prior to accident. Accordingly, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such injury causing permanent disability has resulted in total loss of income of the Claimant. Accordingly, the compensation has been awarded.

Similarly, learned counsel for the Appellant relied upon a later judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Ettiappan v. D. Kumar and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3690. On perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the facts of that case are almost identical to facts of the present case. In the reported judgment, the Claimant sustained injuries in a road accident, which has resulted in the amputation of his leg below the knee. In para-7.1 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that it is the functional disability that is to be taken into consideration for the award of future loss of income. In the said judgment, though the doctors have assessed physical disability to whole body at 70%, it was substituted by the Tribunal on its own to be 50% functional disability in the absence of any material available on record. Eventually, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as a result of such functional disability the claimant in that reported case was unable to perform any duty and, as such, he was not in a position to earn anything in future. It has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for any kind of physical or manual activity a person requires both legs.

Considering the nature of work that was being performed by the Claimant in the reported case and further keeping in view the fact that the right leg of the Claimant was amputated below the knee rendering him immobile and unable to discharge his daily routine work as a loader, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation amount. It has not been established in the reported judgment that the Claimant was carrying on any other avocation to earn his livelihood. As such, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Ettiappan (supra) has held that the assessment of 70% permanent disability is to be considered as 100% functional disability in the reported case. Thus, the same results in an absolute loss of future income and accordingly proceeded to revise the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in that case. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant submitted before this Court that the case of the Appellant being identical in nature to the factual scenario of the case that has been decided in S. Ettiappan’s case (supra), the Appellant is also entitled to 100% loss of income, as a result of 100% functional disability due to amputation of his left leg, keeping in view the nature of work being performed by both.

Learned counsels appearing for the Respondents No.2 & 4-Insurance Companies stated before this Court that since it is a case of composite negligence, both Insurance Companies have been directed to pay the compensation to the Claimant-Appellant in equal proportion. Learned counsels appearing for the Respondents No.2 & 4-Insurance Companies further stated before this Court that, even if, the left leg of the Appellant is amputated, given the advancement in medical sciences, an artificial limb can very well be arranged for the Appellant and he can still be engaged in a gainful manner to earn some livelihood. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in accepting the functional disability at 70% and, accordingly, awarded the compensation amount in favour of the Appellant-Claimant. In such view of the matter, learned counsels appearing for the Respondents No.2 & 4-Insurance Companies submitted before this Court that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality which would call for any interference by this Court in the present appeal. As such, it was stated that since the appeal is devoid of merit, it is liable to be dismissed.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful analysis of the rival contentions, further taking note of the factual background of the present case as well as the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2021 at Annexure-1, this Court observes that the Appellant-Claimant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal with a prayer for enhancement of the compensation amount. With regard to the assessment of monthly as well as annual income of the Appellant-Claimant, this Court found that no conclusive evidence was brought on record on behalf of the Appellant-Claimant to assist the Tribunal in accurately assessing the income of the Appellant-Claimant at the relevant point of time. Thus, under such circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in indulging in guess-work to arrive at the income of the Appellant-Claimant. Neither the Appellant has brought on record anything suggesting any higher income of the Appellant-Claimant, nor was the same rebutted by the Respondents-Insurance Companies compelling the Tribunal to disbelieve such assessment of the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there exists no ground on the part of this Court to interfere with such finding of the Tribunal with regard to the monthly as well as annual income of the Appellant-Claimant in the absence of any specific material to the contrary. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the monthly as well as annual income of the Appellant-Claimant is hereby confirmed.

The next question that falls for consideration in the present appeal is with regard to the total quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide judgment dated 19.02.2021, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,79,625/. While arriving at such figure, the learned Tribunal has assessed the functional disability of the Appellant-Claimant @ 75% and, accordingly, the loss of future earning of the Claimant has been assessed on such basis.

Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, at this juncture, referring to the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, submitted before this Court that such calculation of loss of future income is not correct in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Ettiappan’s case (supra), though the same was controverted by the learned counsels appearing for the Respondents-Insurance Companies. On a careful analysis of the injury sustained by the Appellant-Claimant, further taking note of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Ettiappan’s case (supra), this Court found that the nature of the injury therein is almost identical to the one involved in the present case i.e. the leg of the Claimant was amputated and he was not in a position to perform his duty physically.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that the loss of income is to be assessed at 100% in the absence of any other evidence on record indicating that the Claimant was engaged in any other gainful avocation earning any livelihood. In the present case, there is nothing on record to conclude that the Claimant was in any way engaged in any other avocation or was earning a livelihood in one way or the other after he had sustained injuries. Therefore, this Court is of the view that ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Ettiappan’s case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the assessment of loss of future earning by the Tribunal @ 75% on the basis of permanent disability as has been reported by the Examining Medical Board to the tune of 75%, requires to be reconsidered and revised keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Ettiappan’s case (supra).

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the materials available on record as well as the evidence led by both sides, this Court is of the view that in the present circumstances where the Claimant has undergone amputation of his left leg rendering him virtually jobless and unable to perform any physical or manual activities whereby he could have earned his livelihood. Hence, this Court is of the view that the loss of future income is to be assessed at 100% even though the functional disability has been shown at 75%.

Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, this Court found that the Petitioner is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.13,57,500/-, which has been calculated as follows:-

(Rs.7,125 x 12 x 13 x 100% towards functional disability = Rs.11,11,500/- + other claims allowance on other heads.)

Total compensation of claim is a sum of Rs.13,57,500/-.

Since the Respondent Nos.2 and 4-Insurnace Company have already deposited the awarded amount of Rs.10,79,625/-, which the learned counsel for the parties have agreed to round off to a further consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. As such, the Respondent Nos.2 and 4-Insurance Companies are hereby directed to deposit a further consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand), in equal proportion, towards full and final settlement of the claim amount in addition to the amount which has already been deposited pursuant to impugned award before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks. The award of 12% penal interest is hereby waived.

It is stated at bar that the awarded amount along with interest has already been satisfied since the same has already been deposited before the Tribunal. Hence, the Respondents No.2 and 4-Insurance Companies are only required to deposit the enhanced consolidated amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) before Tribunal as has been directed hereinabove.

With the aforesaid modification and direction, the MACA stands partly allowed with other terms and conditions in the impugned award shall remain intact.