FAO No. 5254 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5254 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision May 12, 2011 Deepa Batra and another ....... Appellants Versus Roshan Lal and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Shammi Khan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for respondent No.3. None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). CM No. -CII of 2011 1. There is a delay of 139 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. Delay of 139 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. FAO No.5254 of 2009 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injury to the appellant that resulted in 100% disablement. The medical board which was constituted to examine the petitioner stated that she on account of head injury suffered a loss of vision to her left eye and suffered mental retardation. She had been handicapped physically and the disability was 100%. The doctors also stated that the condition was non progressive and was not likely to improve. While determining the compensation the Tribunal found that the claimant was a Postgraduate in Business Administration and just before the accident she had got FAO No. 5254 of 2009 (O&M) 2 employment with a Private Company as Sales Executive at `12,000/- per month. While assessing the compensation the Tribunal awarded medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet, pain and suffering besides the loss of earning capacity arising on account of disability. The Tribunal took the income at `12,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 8 to arrive at `11,52,000/- and the choice of multiplier is the subject of challenge among other major contentions raised for the appellant complaining that the compensation is grossly inadequate. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, on the other hand would state that `11,52,000/- if invested would yield a return about `12,000/- and therefore the amount determined by the Tribunal was appropriate and just. 3. In a case where a person is a Postgraduate in Business Administration and had come by a disability which was 100% and that the person should also live a vegetative life with all the amenities in life completely lost, the loss of earning capacity which should be determined will be on the basis of the loss that the injury had caused in financial terms. It will be worked out by the application of multiplier taking note of the assessment of the average life span at 67 years and if the amount were to be invested it would give back a return which can last for the whole life span. The numerical values of multiplier for a person who is relatively young will be taking the number of years which he could earn but the value is less than the number of years of service left. For a person aged 27 years, the value as given in Schedule-II is 18. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 takes note of several divergent views and has prescribed which states that the appropriate multiplier for a person in the age group of 26 to 30 will be 17. The assessment of compensation for injuries in a case where there results a complete loss of earning power is also dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay FAO No. 5254 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Kumar (2010) 12 Scale 265. It explains how the loss of earning capacity is distinct from loss of percentage of disability and there arises all congruence of disability and earning capacity, when the disability is so serious to render a person in capable of working. If the disability of 100% that declared impairment of mental faculty and the loss of vision, I would take the appropriate multiplier as 17 and not 8 as taken by the Tribunal. A person that is required to be attended at all times, the Tribunal assessed `20,000/- which properly would address the attendant charges during the time of her hospitalization. A person who is disabled is a lady and dependent for rest of the life on others and I would, therefore take the average expense for such a person at `2500/- per month and adopt multiplier of 18 to determine the compensation for the expenses for the attendant. I will retain the expenses for medicines, diet charges, and pain and suffering in the manner determined by the Tribunal and even apart from the loss of earning capacity, I will also make provision for loss of amenities of life which she had lost. A young person who is married, but who had lost esteem in society and who cannot run the family as a proper house holder, apart from losing her employment suffers a serious handicap right through the life for which I am of the view that appropriate compensation is to be provided for loss of amenities. I tabulate the various heads of claim as under:- Occupation Sales Executive 27 Claimants S.No. Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court 1 Medicine `1,66,102 `1,66,102/- 2 Attendant charges `20,000/- `5,10,000/- (2500x12x18) 3 Special diet `50,000/- `50,000/- 5 Transport `10,000/- `10,000/- 6 Disability 7 Loss of earning capacity FAO No. 5254 of 2009 (O&M) 4 8 Income `12,000/- `12,000/- 9 Multiplier 8 10 % of loss of earning capacity `11,52,000/- `24,48,000/- 11 Loss of amenities `2,00,000/- Total `14,18,102/- `33,96,102/- 4. The compensation stands enhanced and the liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. Since I have provided for a compensation for the rest of the life, I would allow for withdrawal of compensation amount up to 25% and the balance shall stay invested in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 15 years split in 15 equal shares, the first share for a period of one year, second for a period of two years and so on till the completion of 15th year. The money shall be paid to the husband or who ever is the guardian for the time being for appellant. 6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 12, 2011 archana