[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Manindedr Singh And Others on 12 March, 2026

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

FAO-2613-2024
         2024 (O&M) &
XOBJC-31- 2025                                                  -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
                           -.-

                                               FAO-2613
                                                   2613-2024 (O&M) &
                                               XOBJC
                                               XOBJC-31- 2025

United India Insurance Company Ltd.                             ....Appellant

                                          Vs.

Maninder Singh and others                                       ....Respondents

                                               Reserved on : 24.02.2026
                                               Date of Pronouncement:12.03.2026
                                               Uploaded on : 17.03.2026

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced?NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced?                          YES

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present :   Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,
            for the appellant-Insurance
                              Insurance Company

            Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate and
            Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate
            for cross-objector/respondent
                               respondent No. 1
            (in X Objection No. 31-CII-20225)

            -.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

FAO-2613-20 2024 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

15.12.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition filed under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the ground nd of quantum of

1 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

compensation to be on higher side, side as the appellant/ ppellant/ insurance company was

held liable to pay the compensation to claimant/respondent No. 11.

XOBJC-31-20

2. The present cross-objection objection ha has been preferred by cross--

objector/claimant (respondent No. 1 herein) against the award dated

15.12.2023 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 16 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Tribunal Tribunal, for enhancement of

compensation, granted to the cross-objector cross objector/claimant to the tune of

Rs.51,34,891 891/- along with interest @ 7.5% % per annum on account of injuries

suffered by respondent No.1/cross objector.

objector

3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross cross--

objections filed by the claimant/cross-objector claimant/cross objector are arising out of the same

award dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO--

2613-2024 and XOBJC-31-2025 are decided vide this common judgment.

4. On 23.02.2019, the claimant//injured injured was going from Sh.

Ganesh Handloom Shop, Jamalpur Chowk, Ludhiana to his house while

driving his Activa scooter at a slow speed and on the left side of the road.

When he reached near Puneet Nagat Bridge (small bridge), at that time, an

old man namely Iqbal I bal Singh asked th the complainant for lift. The

claimant/injured halted his Activa and said old man sat down on the pillion

seat. At about 09:20 09 PM, when they were going towards Motibagh Colony at

moderate speed and reached near G.K. Estate tu turn,, in the meanwhile a car,

bearing registration No. PB-10-FT-1017 PB 1017 (in short 'offending vehicle'), which

2 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

was being driven by its driver Sahil Verma in a very rash and negligent

manner came from the opposite direction and while coming on wrong side

of the road, struck against the Activa of claimant/injured. As a result of this

collision, the claimant/injured along with said old man fell down on the road

and received eived serious injuries. After causing the accident, the driver of

offending vehicle ran away from the spot after leaving his car there. Both the

injured were taken to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana.

The other injured i.e. i.e. old man was shifted from the said hospital to Civil

Hospital, Ludhiana from where he was further referred to PGI, Chandigarh.

FIR No.25 dated 24.02.2019, under Sections 279,337,336, 427 IPC, Police

Station Tibba, Ludhiana was registered against the drive driverr of the offending

vehicle.

5. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and

admitted the factum of compensation.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed by the learned Tribunal :-

:

"1. Whether Maninder Singh suffered injuries in a "1.

vehicular accident which took place on 23.02.2019 at about 09.00 PM, due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No. PB-10-FT-1017 PB 1017 by respondent No.1? If so, to what extent? OPP 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident and

3 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy? If so, its effect. OPR

4. Relief."

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

7. Learned counsel for the appellant appellant-Insurance Insurance Company contends

that the average of ITRs of the appellant is to be taken while assessing the

monthly income of the claimant.

claimant Further that there is no loss of income

since it is a case of injury only and the claimant is still working. He further

contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly granted the compensation for

compensation sation of purchase of 05 artificial limbs as he has not purchased the

same from the prescribed shop and produced the estimate. Further, PW2 in

his statement stated that the claimant did not purchase the artificial limbs.

He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be

reduced.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1/cross--

objector contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the

lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He further contends that the learned

Tribunal has rightly made the appellant-Insurance appellant Insurance Company liable to pay the

compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1. Therefore, he prays that the

present cross-objection cross objection be allowed and appeal filed by the appellant--

Insurance Company be dismissed and amount of compensation be enhanced

as per latest law.

4 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of this case.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of

compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of

Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court

Cases 343,, has held as under:-

under:

General principles relating too compensation in injury cases

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and ad ade-

quately restore the claimant to the position prior to the acci-

dent. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objecti objectively vely and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a re-

sult of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those no nor-

mal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Wi Wil-

loughby, 1970 AC 467).

5 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :

Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expend expendi-

ture.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other ga gains) ins) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent di dis-

ability.

(iii) Future medical expenses. Non Non-pecuniary damages (Gen-

eral Damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases cases,, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corrobora corroborat-

ing the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)

(ii)(b),

(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of pro pros-

pects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

19. We may now summarise thee principles discussed above :

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to bbe the percent-

6 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

age of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the pe per-

centage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the pe per-

centage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that pe percent-

age of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured injured-claimant or who exam-

ined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent di dis-

ability can give evidence only in regard th thee extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the ev evi-

dence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different pe per-

centages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, dde-

pending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained bbe-

low with reference to the following Illustration 'A' : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential pe per-

manent disability to the person was quant quantified ified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows:

a) Annual income before the accident : Rs. 36,000/ 36,000/-.

b) Loss of future earning per annum

7 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

(15% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 5400/ 5400/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/ 91,800/-

Illustr Illustration 'B' : The injured was a driver aged 30 years, ear earn-

ing Rs. 3000/- per month. His hand is amputated and his pe per-

manent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the sa sal-

ary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of co com-

pensation will be as follows :

a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs. 36,000 36,000/- .

b) Loss of future earning per annum (75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/ 27000/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/ 4,59,000/-

Illustration 'C' : The injured was 25 years and a ffinal year En-

gineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows :

a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an Engineer : Rs. 60,000/-

b) Loss of future earning per annum

8 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

(70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/ 42000/-

c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18

d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/ 7,56,000/-

[Note : The figures adopted in illustration illustrations (A) and (B) are hy-

pothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra (s (su-

pra)].

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified

the law under Sections 166, 163-A 163 A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

on the following aspects:-

aspects:

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for diff differ-

ent ages: with permanent job; self self-employed or fixed salary. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:

under:-

" Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and ffu-u- neral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric centric or quantum quantum-centric.

centric. We think that at it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in cons consistency istency in respect of those heads."

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs.

State Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:-

9 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

" 7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined

by us:

(a) the application of multiplier of '17' instead of '18' '18';

The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the bba-

sis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para 46 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age group of 115-25 25 years, the multiplier has to be '18' along with factoring in the extent of disability.

The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to bbee applied in the case of the appellant has to be '18' and not '17'.

(b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent disability of 31.1% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled pprinciple rinciple set out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others, 2018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish (s (su-

pra) in para 8:

"8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The

10 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

award of compensation must cover amo among others, the fol-

l-

lowing aspects:

i. Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident; ii. Loss of income including future income; iii. The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;

iv. Medical expenses including those that the vvictim ictim may be required to undertake in future; and v. Loss of expectation of life."

                                                              [emphasis    sup-
                                                                             p-
                                                              plied]

The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) opi opin-

n-

ing that the multiplier method was log logically ically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.

In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine the disability certificate, it shows the admission/ho admission/hospitalization spitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over 1½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as under:

"Nature of injury:

i. compound fracture shaft left humerus ii. fracture both bones left forearm iii. compound fracture both bones right forearm iv. fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand v. subtrochanteric fracture right femur vi. fracture shaft femur vii. fracture both bones left leg

11 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

We have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the ap-

pellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the rre-

spondent State Corporation that the same was not on rre-

cord in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the pos posi-

tion even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration.

We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the afor afore-

said principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the perm perma-

nent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 61(iii), consi consid-

ering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the aac-

tual salary in the present case.

(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has w wa-

tered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish's case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious disput dispute raised by the learned coun- n-

sel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court.

12 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

CONCLUSION

8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled principles, the calculation of compensat compensation by the appel-

lant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would have to be adopted as follows:

Heads Awarded Loss of earning power Rs. 9,81,978/ 9,81,978/-

(Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100 Future prospects (50 per cent Rs.4,90,989/ Rs.4,90,989/-

addition) Medical expenses including Rs.18,46,864/ Rs.18,46,864/-

transport charges, nourish-

nouris ment, etc. Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs.5,00,000/ Rs.5,00,000/-

Loss of comfort, loss of ameni-

amen Rs.1,50,000/ Rs.1,50,000/-

ties and mental agony Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/ Rs.2,00,000/-

      Total                                  Rs.41,69,831/
                                             Rs.41,69,831/-

The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of

Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple interest at the rate

of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of

payment.

13. Adverting to the contention of the appellant appellant-Insurance Insurance

Company that the average of the ITRs ought to have been taken for the

purpose of assessing the income, the said contention runs contrary to the

latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of , in

Rupali Kailas Mamode v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 ACJ

13 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

327, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has categorically held that the

income disclosed in the last Income Tax Return of the deceased constitutes

the most reliable evidence for for assessing the monthly income for computation

of compensation under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The relevant

extract reads as under:

"2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers. The husband of the appellant No.1 died in the accident which occurred on 31.07.2006. The dde-

e-

ceased was aged about 32 years and was undertaking the work as a contractor though he was an architect. The MACT having taken into consideration the evidence avai avail-

l-

able on record had reckoned the income ba based on the in-

n-

come-tax tax return for the years 2006 2006- 2007 wherein it was indicated that the income was Rs.1,67,582/ Rs.1,67,582/-.. Having taken into consideration the other parameters the MACT awarded a sum of Rs.31,15,335/ Rs.31,15,335/-.

3. The High Court while reducing the compensat compensation ion has arrived at the conclusion that the income as indicated in the last returns would not be justified and the average of three years is taken and therefore has reduced the co com-

m-

pensation. Though learned counsel for the respondent IIn-

n-

surance Company seeks to contend that the High Court having taken note of the decisions rendered by this Court has arrived at such conclusion, we are of the opinion that in the present facts of the case, in any event such conclusion by the High Court was not ju justified.

stified. This is for the reason that as noted the deceased was an architect and he was doing contract work, the income income-tax tax returns which

14 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

he had filed from the period 2004 2004- 2005 onwards indicated that there was a steep increase in his income as compared to a sum of Rs.89,964/- declared in the year 2004 2004-2005

and that benefit cannot be denied. If this aspect of the ma mat-

ter is kept in perspective, the income was bound to iin-

crease many folds if he had survived and such income which is denied to the family is the loss of dependency which was required to be determined."

14. The aforesaid legal position has been reiterated by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Meenakshi v. Raj Kumar, Law Finder Doc Id #2570662,

wherein it has been reaffirmed that the income immediately preceding the

date of death ought to form the basis for computation of compensation. The

relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:

"2. In respect of the accident which occurred on 01.06.2014, the claimants had filed the claim petition see seek-

k-

ing compensation. The MACT having taken into consider considera-

a-

tion that the deceased was running a 'Kirana' shop and was aged about 42 years, has on that basis arrived at the compensation. However, the MACT while taking note of the documents at Exhibits- PA to PF has discarded the In-

n-

come Tax Returns which had been filed by the petitioners to prove the income of the deceased from the year 2009 to 2015 stating that they are not the authentic proof of iin-

n-

come since the sale particulars relating to 'Kirana' shop has not been n provided. In that light, the notional income was taken at Rs. 8,100/- and the compensation was th the-

e-

reafter determined through its award dated 31.10.2015. The High Court though has enhanced the compensation,

15 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

has also not relied upon the Income Tax Returns which had been produced but has taken the notional income at Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is in that light a consideration is required in this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the judgment of the MACT to point out the reason reasoning ing as contained in paragraph 25 of the judgment whereby the Income Tax Returns produced was eschewed from consi consid-

eration. In our opinion, the said reason which is assigned therein to indicate that the sales tax returns or the pu pur-

chase and sales particulars of the shop has not been pro-

duced in fact is fallacious in as much as the Income Tax Returns filed itself will indicate the income by the assessee earned and thereby the tax paid. Hence, the documents produced will indicate the income of the deceased in tthe he instant case. Therefore, in that circumstance we are of the opinion that the manner of consideration made is not been justified and the income as indicated through the Income Tax Returns for the relevant years is to be taken into co con-

sideration."

15. In view of the above settled position of law, the learned

Tribunal has not committed any error in considering the income reflected in

the last filed ITR of the claimant.

claimant. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has

rightly taken the income of respondent respondent No. 1 as Rs.2,50,490/ Rs.2,50,490/- per annum

(Rs.20874/- monthly).

monthly) Therefore, herefore, no interference is warranted in this regard regard.

16. With regard to the next contention of the appellant appellant-Insurance Insurance

Company that the claimant/respondent claimant/respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any

compensation towards loss of income on the ground that he continues to

16 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

remain employed in the same job even after the accident, the said contention

is devoid of merit. It is an admitted position on record that the

claimant/respondent /respondent No. 1 suffered amputation of his left leg and has to

wear a prosthetic limb for the remainder of his life. The injuries sustained in

the accident have permanently impaired his physical abilities and

substantially ntially diminished his functional and working capacity. Though the

claimant/respondent /respondent No. 1 may be drawing some income as prior to the

accident, the disability suffered by him has inevitably affected his efficiency

and working capability. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly granted

compensation towards loss of earning capacity. Consequently, no interf interfe-

rence is warranted on this count.

17. As regards the next contention of the appellant appellant-Insurance Com-

pany that the learned Tribunal has has erred in awarding compensation towards

future medical treatment and the cost of prosthetic limb for replacement on

five occasions, the said contention also does not merit acceptance. A perusal

of the impugned award clearly reveals that the left leg of the claimant has

been amputated below the knee and he is required to depend upon a

prosthetic limb for the rest of his life. It is well settled that a prosthetic limb

is not a one--time time purchase and requires periodic maintenance and replac replace-

mentt over the course of a lifetime of a persons persons.. In these circumstances, the

learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation towards the future

replacement of the prosthetic limb. Hence, no interference is warranted in

this regard.

17 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

18. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal

has erred in assessing the permanent disability of the claimant claimant/cross objec-

tor-respondent respondent No. 1 at only 30% 0% to the whole body. This finding is contrary

to the medical evidence placed on record. The disability certificate exhibited

as Ex.P4 clearly records that the claimant/cross /cross objector

was examined and assessed by Dr. Rajesh Paul Paul/PW-3 (Department rtment of

Orthopaedics) who opined that the claimant/cross Orthopaedics), /cross objector

has suffered 60% % permanent disability on account that his right leg was

amputated below knee.

knee. The assessment of disability at a reduced rat rate of 30% %

is wholly inadequate and unjustified, especially considering that the disabil disabili-

ty is permanent in nature. Due to the said injuries, the claimant/cross objec-

tor-respondent respondent No. 1 shall be unable to perform any physical work involving

walking, standing, or prolonged movement throughout his lifetime. The

impairment has a direct and adverse impact on his functional ability and si sig-

nificantly diminishes his prospects prospects of securing gainful employment in the

future.

19. It is a settled principle of law that while determining compens compensa-

tion, the functional disability and its impact on the victim's earning capacity

must be given due weight, rather than mechanically reduci reducing ng the percentage

of medical disability. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. National Insurance

Co. Ltd. 2023(9) scale 970, 970, wherein, the Apex Court held that in cases

where the nature of the disability effectively incapacitates a person from

18 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

pursuing any meaningful employment, the functional disability must be ev eva-

luated in terms of the resultant loss of earning capacity, and not merely on

the basis of medical assessment. The relevant po portion of the judgment is re-

produced as under:

"14. The five injuries which are permanent in nature aap-

p-

parently make him unfit for any employment even though the disability may be 60% or 85%. The compression fra frac-

c-

tures of seven cervical vertebra resulting int into o Paraplegia and further loss of bladder function make it absolutely impossible for a person to work and be gainfully eem-

m-

ployed. Considering the nature of disability, loss of iin-

n-

come, is, thus, held to be 100% and not 50% as held by the High Court."

20. Therefore, herefore, in order to serve the ends of justice, the functional

disability of the claimant/cross objector-respondent respondent No. 1 deserves to be as-

sessed at 60% %,, and the compensation ought to be recalculated accordingly.

21. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal

has rightly added add amount towards future prospects @ 40%. Further as per

record, respondent No. 1 was stated to be 36 years old at the time of the

accidence. The factum of age is not disputed and the learned Tribunal has

rightly applied the multiplier of 15.

22. A further perusal of the award reveals that meagre amount is

granted by the learned Tribunal under the heads of pain and sufferings sufferings,,

transportation, special diet, attendant charges and loss of amenities of life.

19 of 21

FAO-2613-2024 2024 (O&M) &

CONCLUSION

23. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the above referred to judgments, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company

is dismissed being devoid of any merits, whereas cross cross-objection objection filed by

the cross-objector/ objector/claimant is allowed.. The award dated 15.12.2023 is modi-

fied accordingly. The cross-objector/claimant cross claimant is held entitled to enhanced

compensation as per the calculations made her here-under:-

Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded No. 1 Income Rs.20874 20874/-

2     Loss of future prospects (40%)
                               (             Rs.8350
                                                8350/- (40% of Rs.20874/-)
3     Annual Income                          Rs.33,50,688/- (Rs.29224/- X 12)
4     Loss of future earning on account Rs.2,
                                        Rs.2,10,413/-         (Rs.350688/-      X
      of 60%
           % disability                 60%)
                                          %)
5     Multiplier of 15
                    1                        Rs.31

31,56,195/- (Rs.210413X 15) 7 Pain and suffering Rs.55,00,000/- 8 Attendant Charges Rs.11,00,000/- 9 Transportation Charges Rs.770,000/-

10. Future Medical expenses+ expenses pros- Rs.33,41,400 33,41,400 (27,84,500 + thetic limbs 5,56,900) 11 Loss of amenities of life Rs.2,00,000/ Rs.2,00,000/-

12 Special Diet Rs.80,000/ Rs.80,000/-

Total compensation awarded:-

awarded: Rs.

Rs.74,47,595/-

Deduction:-

      Deduction:                             Rs.
                                             Rs.51,34,891/-
      Amount awarded by Tribunal
      Enhanced amount of compen-
                         compe Rs.
                                 Rs.23,12,704/-
      sation                     (74,,47,595- 51,34,891)