IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.831 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision:09.12.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Pankaj Kumar and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.1174 of 2005 (O&M) Pankaj Kumar ....Appellant versus Amar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.831 of 2005 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.1174 of 2005. Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for the claimant. Mr. H.B.S.Baidwan, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.1174 of 2005. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company challenging the issue of quantum,which had the benefit of defence under Section 170. The claimant himself has come on appeal challenging the alleged inadequacy of compensation for the accident. The Tribunal had awarded 10 lakhs of rupees for an accident that resulted in loss of vision of one eye where the doctor had certified that he had 55% disability. The doctor assessed Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.11,700/- FAO No.831 of 2005 (O&M) - 2 - towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for special diet and Rs.9,000/- for loss of earning during the time of injuries. He had been selected to be a Conductor in Transport Corporation with the start of a salary at Rs.3,300/-, but it had not ultimately to take place in view of the injuries and his inability to report pursuant to the appointment order. The Tribunal, therefore, found that he had lost his job and over a period of time, he would at least drawn Rs.8,000/- per month. Taking 55% permanent disability, the Tribunal found that it should be taken as having resulted in a loss of Rs.4,400/- per month and adopted a multiplier of 12. The Tribunal determined a compensation of Rs.8,44,800/- towards loss of earning capacity. It had also added Rs.1,09,500/- for loss of prospect of marriage and rounded off the award at Rs.10 lakhs. 2. While the pecuniary heads of claim relating to medical expenses, special diet and loss of salary have been properly dealt with and so too the assessment of compensation for pain and suffering at Rs.15,000/-, the Tribunal, in my view, has not properly assessed the loss of earning capacity. There are well known parameters in the matter of determination of compensation for injuries and it must be based on what was produced as evidence. If there was a prospect of increase in income in employment with Corporation with the start of pay at Rs.3,220/-, the Tribunal's assessment of the income at Rs.8,000/- per month was not perhaps justified. While a provision for future increase itself need not be removed, it ought to again be applied in a manner that spells out in conformity to what is judicially accepted and applied by various Courts. A provision for increase of 50% for a person, who was less than 40 years FAO No.831 of 2005 (O&M) - 3 - of age, is what was approved by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298, and I would, therefore, take the average income of the person to be Rs.4,500/-. Taking the basic salary at Rs.3,000/- and taking a further provision of Rs.1,500/- for a future increase, the visual impairment in one eye must be taken to result in loss of earning capacity to an extent of 40% as per the scale provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I would take 40% as the resultant loss of earning capacity for the 55% disability which the doctor has assessed. I will adopt a multiplier of 18, for, he was still a young person and had a long career. The loss of earning capacity would be Rs.3,88,800/- (Rs.4,500/- x 40% x 12 x 18=3,88,800/-). The assessment of compensation for loss of marriage prospects at Rs.1,09,500/- seems to have no basis. While I would root out this head of claim to be inappropriate, to reassess the compensation for the disability suffered by the person, who had lost an eye and consequently, the amenities of life. I would provide for Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities instead of Rs.1,09,500/- as assessed by the Tribunal. The total compensation would, therefore, be Rs.4,38,800/-. In the manner, I have worked out, there is a resultant reduction in the compensation already made which I hold to be what is appropriate and just in this case. 3. Both the appeals are disposed of as above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.12.2010 sanjeev