Case: Sanjay Batham Vs. Munnalal Parihar

of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation.” 13. In the light of the above, we shall now consider whether the compensation awarded by the High Court is just and reasonable or the appellant is entitled to higher compensation. 14. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the appellant was earning Rs.50/- per day by doing the work as an unskilled labourer with Raj Gas Agency. It is also not in dispute that as a result of accident, the appellant suffered injuries on different parts of body including the head and after operation left portion of his body, i.e. left hand and left leg got paralyzed and as a result of that he will not be in a position to do the work which he was doing before the accident. In his deposition, Dr. N.D. Vayas, Head of Neurosurgery Department, J.A.H. Hospital, who treated the appellant before and after the operation, stated that left portion of the appellants body was paralyzed but after treatment there was slight improvement in his condition. Dr. Vayas then gave out that the appellant will require further treatment for paralysis. The learned Single Judge, who had the occasion to see the appellant in the Court, found that he was not in a position to move his left hand and left leg. He assessed the disability to be 50% and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, he committed an error by applying the multiplier of 16 ignoring that at the time of accident, the appellants age was only 20 years. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 , this Court has considered several issues including the application of correct multiplier and held : “We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” In view of the above noted judgment, we hold that multiplier of 18 deserves to be applied for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to the appellant in lieu of the loss of earning. Thus, under this head the appellant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- .15. Although, the appellant had suffered temporary disablement, the evidence of the doctor shows that he will require treatment in future. The Tribunal and the High Court have not awarded any compensation for future treatment, which would necessarily include doctors fee, cost of medicine, transportation, diet, etc. Keeping in view the high cost of living, we feel that ends of justice will be served by awarding a lump sum amount of Rs. 2 lacs for future treatment.16. The award made by the High Court for pain, suffering and trauma and in lieu of loss of the prospects of marriage is wholly inadequate. The appellant, who suffered paralysis on left part of the body will neither be able to work as a labourer nor he will be able to lead a normal life. His marriage prospects are also bleak. A normal girl will, in all probability, not like to marry a disabled person. Therefore, it is apposite to award reasonable and just compensation to the appellant for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life which, in our view, should be Rs.2 lacs.17. It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 , in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]14. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the appellant was earning Rs.50/per day by doing the work as an unskilled labourer with Raj Gas Agency. It is also not in dispute that as a result of accident, the appellant suffered injuries on different parts of body including the head and after operation left portion of his body, i.e. left hand and left leg got paralyzed and as a result of that he will not be in a position to do the work which he was doing before the accident. In his deposition, Dr. N.D. Vayas, Head of Neurosurgery Department, J.A.H. Hospital, who treated the appellant before and after the operation, stated that left portion of the appellants body was paralyzed but after treatment there was slight improvement in his condition. Dr. Vayas then gave out that the appellant will require further treatment for paralysis. The learned Single Judge, who had the occasion to see the appellant in the Court, found that he was not in a position to move his left hand and left leg. He assessed the disability to be 50% and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, he committed an error by applying the multiplier of 16 ignoring that at the time of accident, the appellants age was only 20 years. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 , this Court has considered several issues including the application of correct multiplier and heldtherefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that isfor 26 to 30 years,for 31 to 35 years,for 36 to 40 years,for 41 to 45 years, andfor 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is,for 51 to 55 years,for 56 to 60 years,for 61 to 65 years andfor 66 to 70.15. Although, the appellant had suffered temporary disablement, the evidence of the doctor shows that he will require treatment in future. The Tribunal and the High Court have not awarded any compensation for future treatment, which would necessarily include doctors fee, cost of medicine, transportation, diet, etc. Keeping in view the high cost of living, we feel that ends of justice will be served by awarding a lump sum amount of Rs. 2 lacs for future treatment.16. The award made by the High Court for pain, suffering and trauma and in lieu of loss of the prospects of marriage is wholly inadequate. The appellant, who suffered paralysis on left part of the body will neither be able to work as a labourer nor he will be able to lead a normal life. His marriage prospects are also bleak. A normal girl will, in all probability, not like to marry a disabled person. Therefore, it is apposite to award reasonable and just compensation to the appellant for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life which, in our view, should be Rs.2 lacs.17. It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 , in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of anthe Indian context several other factors should be taken into consideration including education of the dependants and the nature of job. In the wake of changed societal conditions and global scenario, future prospects may have to be taken into consideration not only having regard to the status of the employee, his educational qualification; his past performance but also other relevant factors, namely, the higher salaries and perks which are being offered by the private companies these days. In fact while determining the multiplicand this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben held that even dearness allowance and perks with regard thereto from which the family would have derived monthly benefit, must be taken into consideration.