Case: Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oritl.Ins.Co.Ltd&amp;Anr

Loss of expectation of life. 14. In the affidavit filed by him before the Tribunal, the appellant categorically stated that due to accident he had suffered injuries on the abdomen and other parts of the body; that he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, where he remained for 15 days; that thereafter, he went to his native place at Gorakhpur and remained admitted in Royal Hospital from 29.9.2003 to 10.10.2003; that he had also taken treatment at Sri Krishna Hospital and Urology Centre as indoor patient from 12.10.2003 to 13.10.2003 and that he had spent Rs. 40,000/- towards medicines, conveyance and other charges. He further stated that due to accident, he was finding it difficult to pass urine and was having severe pain in the lower part of the abdomen; that the Doctors had advised him to undergo an operation to set right the problem but due to financial constraint he was not in a position to undergo the surgery. As regards his earning, the appellant gave out that at the time of accident, he was working as Carpenter and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and that after the accident he was not in a position to work as carpenter. 15. In his affidavit, PW-2 Dr. S.Ranjanna confirmed that the appellant was admitted in Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital on 8.9.2003 and was discharged on 22.9.2003; that he had examined the patient on 2.5.2005 and found that he was having altered gait, frequency of inculcation and was finding difficult to sit with cross-legs or squat. In cross-examination, Dr. Ranjanna made the following statement: "1) Patient walks with a riding gait.2) Tenderness present over pubic region.3) His movements on right side are restricted by 30%.4) Wasting of right pelive surrender by 6 cms.5) Wasting of right leg muscles by 3 cms.6) Difficulty to pass urine.As per urologist opinion he need surgery for STRUCTURE URETHRA.Check X-ray shows 698/10.1.2003 evidence of old fracture of both rams of both pelive bones noted with altered shape of selive inset.Due to above disabilities he cannot pass the urine smoothly he will have disturbed sleep due to frequency of ... He cannot sit crossed, difficulty to squat difficulty to lift any weight. He cannot do any hard manual work.After referring to various guidelines and including Alimco manual I am the opinion that the petitioner is having disability 26% of right lower limb & 25% due to urethral injury and 38% disabilities to the whole body. In view of this disabilities, the petitioner cannot work as a Carpenter and cannot do any other manual work also.I am herewith producing the following documents. Such as,1) Case Sheet.2) Recent examination O . P . Book3) Recent check X-ray." 16. Unfortunately, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court adverted to the criteria laid down by this Court for award of compensation under the two broad heads, i.e., pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and awarded compensation, which cannot but be described as wholly unjust. 17. The respondents have not controverted the appellants assertion that at the time of accident his age was 24 years; that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a Carpenter and that as a result of accident he had to remain in hospitals for different durations. Therefore, under the first head i.e, loss of earning and other gains during the period of hospitalisation (one month), the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/-. 18. It is also not in dispute that as a result of accident, the appellant suffered 26% disability of the right lower limb, 25% disability due to urethral injury and 38% disability to the whole body. Although, the percentage of the disability of whole body is 38, the evidence produced by the appellant in the form of his own affidavit and the affidavit of PW-2 shows that he will not be able to work as carpenter or do any manual work throughout his life. In other words, even though the disability suffered by the appellant is not 100 per cent, his working capacity has been reduced to zero. However, keeping in view the degree of disability, i.e. 38%, we hold that he shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.3,32,640/- (38% of Rs.5,000.00 = Rs.1,540/- x 12 x 18) for loss of future earning.19. The issue regarding expenses for future treatment is required to be decided in the light of the evidence produced by the parties. Although, in his evidence, PW-2 Dr. S Ranjanna has stated that the appellant would require future treatment but no concrete evidence was produced by him, i.e. appellant, about the possible expenses which he may incur for treatment in future. This phenomenon is not unusual in such cases particularly when the claimant belongs to financially weaker strata of the society. He cannot engage a competent lawyer to effectively prosecute his case before the Tribunal and the High Court. However, as held in R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal and the Court can fix the amount of compensation by making some guess work. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant and the fact that he will have to take treatment throughout life, we feel that ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under that head.20. For pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- deserves to be awarded to the appellant. Likewise, for the loss of amenities including the loss of prospects of marriage which has become an illusion for the appellant, it will be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.2 lacs.21. It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- 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]17. The respondents have not controverted the appellants assertion that at the time of accident his age was 24 years; that he was earning Rs.5,000/It is also not in dispute that as a result of accident, the appellant suffered 26% disability of the right lower limb, 25% disability due to urethral injury and 38% disability to the whole body. Although, the percentage of the disability of whole body is 38, the evidence produced by the appellant in the form of his own affidavit and the affidavit ofshows that he will not be able to work as carpenter or do any manual work throughout his life. In other words, even though the disability suffered by the appellant is not 100 per cent, his working capacity has been reduced to zero. However, keeping in view the degree of disability, i.e. 38%, we hold that he shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.3,32,640/(38% of Rs.5,000.00 = Rs.1,540/x 12 x 18) for loss of future earning.19. The issue regarding expenses for future treatment is required to be decided in the light of the evidence produced by the parties. Although, in his evidence,Dr. S Ranjanna has stated that the appellant would require future treatment but no concrete evidence was produced by him, i.e. appellant, about the possible expenses which he may incur for treatment in future. This phenomenon is not unusual in such cases particularly when the claimant belongs to financially weaker strata of the society. He cannot engage a competent lawyer to effectively prosecute his case before the Tribunal and the High Court. However, as held in R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal and the Court can fix the amount of compensation by making some guess work. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant and the fact that he will have to take treatment throughout life, we feel that ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/under that head.20. For pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/deserves to be awarded to the appellant. Likewise, for the loss of amenities including the loss of prospects of marriage which has become an illusion for the appellant, it will be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.2 lacs.21. It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/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.