Case: Narendra Singh Vs. Nishant Sharma &amp; Another

to assume that he would have become a skilled worker in the course of time. The minimum wage earned by a skilled worker can be taken as Rs. 7,000/- per month. We take the monthly salary of the appellant accordingly. Following the principle laid down in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company reported in 2012 (6) SCC 421 , we add 30% to prospective increase of future income he could have been entitled to in course of his work life. Thus, the total annual income would be Rs. 1,09,200/-. Again following the principle laid down in Sarla Vermas case (supra), we take the multiplier of 17 to calculate the amount of compensation the appellant is entitled to under the head of loss of future income and arrive at Rs. 18,56,400/-. 10. Regarding the percentage of disability, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant produced Ex-1-the appellants permanent disability certificate, Ex-2- the Injury Report and Ex-3-X-Ray Report as documentary evidence to prove his permanent partial disablement. Further, A.W.3- Dr. M.P. Goyal, in his evidence stated that the appellant had suffered from fracture of his foot bone. As per his evidence, the first and second metatarsal bone had compound fractures. During treatment, his right leg was amputated below knee. On examination by operation it was found that 3 and = inches below his right knee stump was present and as a result 60% permanent disability was assessed. The doctor also deposed that the appellant will be having problem for daily work and that he will be required to use artificial limb. 11. The learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2-Insurance Company, on the other hand, relied upon the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 , to assert that 60% disability of the appellant as assessed by the Courts below is on the higher side and that 60% physical disability as assessed by the Director of Rehabilitation Centre, Jaipur, does not amount to 60% economic disability. The learned counsel further argued as per Ajay Kumar case, that the Tribunal should not have mechanically applied the percentage of disability of the appellant as a percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. It was opined in that case that "when a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% in the left lower limb, it is not same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body". This Court opined, that in most of the cases, equating extent of loss of earning capacity to the extent of permanent disability will result in award of either too high or too low a compensation. In paragraph no. 12 of the said judgment, this Court had further opined that the Tribunal has to decide if there is any permanent disability so that future loss of income can be calculated and if so, to what extent. If there is no permanent disablement, then future loss of income shall not be calculated. Therefore, the Tribunal has to decide: i) Whether the disablement is permanent or temporary?ii) If the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement?(iii) If the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person? 12. Though paragraph 12 of the said judgment favours the case of the appellant herein the test laid down in the case, stands incorrect on principle in the presence of the First Schedule of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The permanent partial disability of the appellant is correctly assessed by both the Courts below at 60% permanent partial disablement as per Entry 19 of the First Schedule of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. This finding is neither challenged by the insured nor by the Insurance Company before the appellate Court by obtaining permission from the Tribunal as provided under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to avail the defence available for the insured and contest the proceeding. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to only 60% of the loss of future income. Hence, the total amount of compensation under the head of loss of future income is Rs. 11,13,840/-. 13. Under conventional heads, following the decision of Kumaresh (supra), we award Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering since the appellant cannot walk, sit, squat or run freely and he is not able to live a normal life. We also award Rs. 1,00,000/- for medical expenses for whole life since he has to survive with artificial limb which might require replacement from time to time. Since the appellants leg is amputated below the knee, his chances of mobility reduce drastically. He will be deprived from attending social functions. His chances of getting married also get reduced to a great extent. Therefore, we further award Rs. 3,00,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life including loss of marital prospects and marital happiness. We also award Rs. 50,000/- for conveyance charges and cost of attendant in his old age since he will be requiring assistance for his basic chores as he grows old. And we also award Rs. 50,000/- for food and nourishment. Hence, in total, a sum of Rs. 16,28,840/- is awarded as compensation in favour of the appellant.14. Further, an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation was awarded by the Tribunal which was enhanced to 7.5% by the High Court. The interest rates determined by both the Courts below are bad in law as per the legal principles laid down in Municipal Council of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2011) 4 SCC 481, wherein this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants. Applying the same legal principles, we grant interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded by this Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. Under conventional heads, following the decision of Kumaresh (supra), we award Rs. 50,000/for pain and suffering since the appellant cannot walk, sit, squat or run freely and he is not able to live a normal life. We also award Rs. 1,00,000/l expenses for wholelife since he has to survive with artificial limb which might require replacement from time to time. Since the appellants leg is amputated below the knee, his chances of mobility reduce drastically. He will be deprived from attending social functions. His chances of getting married also get reduced to a great extent. Therefore, we further award Rs. 3,00,000/for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life including loss of marital prospects and marital happiness. We also award Rs. 50,000/for conveyance charges and cost of attendant in his old age since he will be requiring assistance for his basic chores as he grows old. And we also award Rs. 50,000/for food andnourishment. Hence, in total, a sum of Rs. 16,28,840/is awarded as compensation in favour of the appellant.14. Further, an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation was awarded by the Tribunal which was enhanced to 7.5% by the High Court. The interest rates determined by both the Courts below are bad in law as per the legal principles laid down in Municipal Council of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2011) 4 SCC 481, wherein this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants. Applying the same legal principles, we grant interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded by this Court.