gmPELLANT g .. Devpuri, Through Its Partner R.K. Agrawal,Aged about40 years R/o Devpuri ,Tahsil 81, District— Raipur(C.G.) W,“ VERSUS [WNER ) 4 & %{?~1&;/& Arun Agravval S/o Late Shri z ‘ {4,10 M/s. Arun Agrlculture . ... . .u..... \ £7I§§PONDENTS 1% Shyam Lal Patel S/ o Shri Devar @ Ratan y (CLAIMANT) x R/o Patel(Marar) Villagev Sarar Aged Tahsn about Gurur, 45 yaars / District~ D'hrg(C.-G.) i, t; Girdharila] Sahu S/o Shri Rikhiram Sahu Aged about 33 years, R/o Village & Post- Kulia, Tahsil— Gurur, Distt— Durg (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Limited,Branch Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, gg/DRIVER) K w. (INSURER) Tahsn &, District- Raipur (co) LIEHICLE .MLSCELLAEANOUS ACT 1988 APPEAL UNDER SECTION t - “,9 173 " OF MOTOR Ag'ymn1 n1 ‘ ’ A L, . . ,‘ { y‘agmmw g zmaa; mgm'gw; was m wagféiéa 31m mam awtxmk mm zamw mwvi mx *Iggmvs WE ¥ M mw av Mawa #asmu a um Wtwqpam W I¥aw¢£~ @M‘Mg mama: memm samaw :§ " ’ f‘ ‘mna’‘ag: “em www w: manna WM pm 4W mm $§9¥m¢ 9w- $1M 3$¥xi$m WW§ aua‘pww iwwiww wwa'! W w " ME» mm MW w M AVG {I *wmm mwm D’% . Q i www wa‘w‘va 9‘ t pmawgs& Myag, § £0 ; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice LM. Quddusi and n’ble Shri Justi rashant Kumar Mish Miscellaneous ApQeal (C4 No.39? of 2006 AQQellant M/s Arun Agriculture, Devpuri versus Shyam Lal Patel and others Resgondents Presen_t: o . ,x j; Shri Prateek Sharma, counsel for the appellant. LI ’ ' None Shri Praveen for other K. respondents. Dhurandhar, counsel for respondent No.1. Mscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16m March, 201 1 ) m Perl.M. Quddusi J.: Heard. 2, This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles .Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act’) has been preferred by the owner of Bajaj Caliber motor cycle bearing registration No.MP—23-MD-6701 (mentioned as MP 62-2169 in'the claim petition) challenging the award of compensation of Rs.5,45,000/- passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg in Claim Case No.86/2001. 3. Case of the claimant, as stated in the ciaim petition, is that when ‘he was travelling on' LML ,Vespa Scooter bearing registration No,MP 24 — 6174 from Jhalmala to Gurur, the said scooter was being driven slowly and carefully by its owner Mr. Jaibharat Puri, Advocate. Ho ce P ra ahead of Jagtara, the When they reached near Ma’uya turnmg appeHants Bajaj Cahber motor cycle came from the opposrte srde being driven in rash and negligent manner, and dashed agarnst the Vespa Scooter, as a result of which, all the three persons sitting on the Vespa Scooter fell down and the claimant/respondent No.1 sustained grievous injuries. He along with two other injured persons were taken to Masihi Hospital, Dhamtari, where he was treated for injuries on his right leg, head and chest. His right leg was amputated from knee level and was admitted in hospital for about 20 days and thereafter the treatment continued for 3 months. The claimant, a clerk in the District Police Office, claimed compensation of Rs.6,95,000/-. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the injured claimant, being a Government servant, has not sustained any loss of income as he continues to be in Government service, therefore, the amount of compensation settled in the impugned award is excessive and deserves to be reduced suitably. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Not/claimant would submit that looking to the fact that the claimant’s right leg has been amputated from the knee level and the claimant has spent huge amount in his treatment and he has also suffered grave mental agony, pain and suffering, the impugned award needs no interference. we 6. The claimant is an Assistant Grade—ll in the District Police Office at Dhamtari. On account of injuries, he could not attend W‘§. 3 duties for about 3 months, how’ever, he continues to remain a Government servant and it has not come in the evidence that he has suffered any loss of salary income on account of the injuries sustained by him. 7. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2010 (12) Scale 265, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with method of ascertainment of compensation in injury cases, has held in paragraph 1O of the judgment th‘Us: “10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the‘head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example if the left hand of a claimant is amputated the permanent physmal or functional disablement may be assessed around 60% lf the claimant was a driver or a carpenter the actual loss of earning capacrty may virtually be hundred percent, If he Is neither able to driver or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a § clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in ioss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical funions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. ln fact. there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of ‘loss of future earninqs‘, if the claimant continues in government service‘ thouqh he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the iniured claimant may be continued in service. but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to thepost or ‘ob which he was earlier holding‘ on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacityl taking note of the reduced earning capacity. lt may be noted that when compensationis awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%). the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result. only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of lifg as otherwise there may bea duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.“ (Em hasis Su lied) 8. (supra), this Curt shall in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another now proceed to consider as to whether the amount awarded by the leard Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable or it is excessive. M: In view of what has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 4 ct o ne @ 5 The claimant has suffered permanent disability upto 70% as mentioned in the disabiiity certificate Ex.P-1. On the basis of claimant’s saiary at the rate of Rs.7,000/— per month, i.e., Rs.84,000/— per annum and after appiying muitiplier of 13, the Ciaims Tribunal has taken total loss of income at 100% at Rs.10,92,000/— and has thereafter taken 70% of the said amount as Rs,7,64,400/— and thereafter has proceeded to award Rs.5,00,000/—. ’ However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another (supra), there is, in fact, no loss of future earning and as such the claimant is not entitled to any amount under this head. 9. There is evidence on record that the claimant was not able to perform his duties for 3 months and loss of this earning comes to Rs.21,000/—. The claimant has also spent Rs.23,000/— for artificial limb and this amount has also been aWarded. Further, an amount of Rs.7,000/- has been awarded for special diet and Rs.5,000/— for transportation to attend Dr.lqbal’s clinic at Dhamtari several times. Amount awarded under all the above heads are not interfered with. It appears that the Claims Tribunal, after awarding Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of future earning, has not awarded any other amount under the head loss of amenities as a consequence of amputation of right leg from the knee level. ln the opinion of this Court, instead of awarding Rs.5,00,000/— under the head loss of future earning, the learned Claims Tribunal should have awarded compensation under the head loss of amenities. The claimant has stated that he is notaable to perform his daily routine in the manner in which he was performing M 6 prior to the accident inasmuch as he is required to’ seek assistance of attendants for going to office and coming back therefrom. He has also stated that he has agricuitural land at Village Sorar and after death of his brother he is not able to take care of the agricultural operations because of the amputation of the right leg. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court deems it proper to award a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the claimant towards loss of amenities as a consequence of amputation of the right leg, treatment expenses, mental agony, pain and suffering etc. insteadof awarding any amount under the head loss of future earning. Thus, the claimant is entitled to get amount of Rs.21,000/— for losing salary for 3 months, Rs.7,000/— for special diet, Rs.23,000/— for artificial limb and Rs.5,000/— for transportation to attend Dr.lqbal’s clinic at Dhamtari several times. On addition of amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for loss of amenities, etc. the total award comes to Rs.3,06,000/—. ln the opinion of this Court, this amount of Rs.3,06,000/7 is just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the tact that the claimant has not suffered any loss of future earning. 10. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. The amount already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted towards the amount awarded'by this Court. 11. Consequently, the miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sdl- I.M.Quddusi Judge Gopal