Sunil Bapu Damodar Jagtap vs Kadu Gangaram Koli And Ors

Assessment year

Financial year","Gross Income

Taxable Income","Income

Tax",Net income,

2009-2010

2008-2009","1,62,567

162,567",836,"1,61,731","Before the

accident.

2010-2011

2009-2010","1,82,613

1,64,610",475,"1,64,135","In the year of

accident

2010-2011

2011-2012","2,20,000/-

1,64,331/-",450,"1,63, 975","In the year

next to the

accident

The above chart shows that there was increase in the income of the claimant every year. In the year before the accident, his income was Rs.",,,,

1,62,567/-. In the financial year 2009-2010, his income was increased to Rs. 1,82,613/-, but due to investment in postal recurring deposit post office, his",,,,

taxable income was reduced to Rs. 1,61,612/-. In the year next to the year of accident, the income of the claimant was Rs. 2,20,000/-, but he showed",,,,

depreciation of Rs. 28,776/- and made investment in post office R.D. for Rs. 24,000/- to reduce his income to nominal level of Rs. 1,64,320/-. These",,,,

figures indicate that the income of the claimant has not at all decreased, but increased every year. In the light of these facts, it is not possible to accept",,,,

the evidence of the claimant and his doctor that the claimant was having functional disability and was unable to continue his work of,,,,

barber.      Â,,,,

The evidence shows that claimant was running a barber saloon with the help of two workers. There is no evidence to show that due to the injury to,,,,

him, he was required to engage another worker. I find that there is evidence uncontroverted of some physical disability due to restricted movements",,,,

which is assessed at 25 % by CW2 Dr. Ahire. It is stated that the claimant was having difficulty in squatting and sitting cross legged. Considering the,,,,

evidence on record, I hold that the claimant must be continuing to do his work as barber without appointment of additional worker. But due to physical",,,,

disability, there may be reduction in his working capacity to the extent of 20 %.",,,,

The evidence on record shows that the claimant was having earning Rs. 1,65,000/- i.e. around Rs. 14,000/- per month. It is with the help of three",,,,

workers. This is net income after paying the wages of the skilled workers. Thus, each worker must be earning of Rs.4,500/- per month for his owner.",,,,

Considering the earning from each worker, I assume that the claimant must be paying Rs.4,000/- per month to each of his employees. Besides, the",,,,

claimant was also doing supervisory work. I, therefore, hold that the income from the saloon has not been stopped. The income by doing barber",,,,

work and supervisory work is also not stopped. He can do his work but may be required to take rest periodically. Hence there may be functional,,,,

disability of around 20 %. I assume the income of the claimant at Rs. 6,000/- per month with respect to his own skill of cutting hair and doing",,,,

supervision of the shop with loss of 20 %. The loss of income would be Rs. 1200 p.m. i.e. Rs, 14,400/per annum. The claimant was aged 49 years and",,,,

multiplier would be 13 and loss of income would be Rs. 1,87,200/-.",,,,

Since the claimant was self-employed, I grant future prospect of 25 % to hold loss of income of Rs. 2,34,000/-.",,,,

In addition, the claimant is entitled for medical expenses of Rs. 58,600/-. I further award following amounts :-",,,,

Loss of earning Rs. 2,34,000/-",,,,

Medical expenses Rs.   58,600/-",,,,

Pains and sufferings Rs.   25,000/-",,,,

Loss of amenities and,,,,

enjoyment of life Rs.   25,000/-",,,,

Loss of income during the,,,,

hospitalization. Rs.  18,000/-",,,,

Transport, attendance charges   diet, etc.          Rs.  20,000/-",,,,

Future expenses for removing   rod / implants  Rs.   20,000/-",,,,

                                                           Â,,,,

Total :Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Rs. 4,00,600/-",,,,

Rounded up        Rs. 4,01,000/-",,,,

Â,,,,

The learned trial Judge has rightly held the income of the claimant of Rs. 6,000/- per month but for different reasons. He has not granted",,,,

enhancement on account of future prospects. He has granted less medical expenses than the bills produced. He considered loss of income only for,,,,

hospitalization period, but when there was fracture, the claimant could not have attended his work for at least 3 months. The compensation awarded of",,,,

Rs.2,38,700/- by the learned trial Judge is on lower side and it needs of raising to Rs. 4,00,600/-for the reasons stated, I maintain interest @ 8 % per",,,,

annum.,,,,

Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. The Judgment and award of the learned trial court is modified and the compensation awarded is increased to",,,,

Rs. 4,01,000/-.",,,,

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 do jointly and severally pay Rs. 4,01,000/- (inclusive of NFL amount) with interest @Â 8 % per annum and proportionate",,,,

costs. For the purpose of costs, the advocate fees in this court is quantified at Rs. 15,000/-. The NFL amount and other amounts paid or deposited will",,,,

be reduced from the above liability and the interest shall be accordingly adjusted. The balance amount shall be paid by the insurance company by,,,,

cheque to the claimant. Award amounting decree shall be drawn up accordingly.,,,,