Case: ERUDHAYA PRIYA Vs. STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD

was also attributed under various heads of extra nourishment, medical expenses, physiotherapy, loss of matrimonial aspects, loss of comfort and amenities, mental agony, and pain and suffering. The total quantification of the compensation by the MACT was of Rs. 35,24,288/- payable by the respondent State Corporation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with costs. 4. The respondent State Corporation filed an appeal against this order and the appellant filed cross objections. Both of them were decided by the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 27.10.2017 by a common order. The High Court, confirming the findings of negligence of the bus driver, reduced the compensation to Rs. 25,00,000/- primarily on the ground that the multiplier method for quantifying loss of earning power has been wrongly applied as it had not come on record as to how the injuries suffered by the appellant would have a bearing on her earning capacity as a software engineer. The interest rate was sustained. 5. The appellant has claimed before this Court that she is entitled to enhancement of compensation even over and above what was granted by the MACT and has quantified the same as Rs. 41,69,831/- under various heads along with claiming a revised interest rate @ 12% per annum. 6. We heard learned counsels for the parties. They have also filed short synopses of their respective claims and rebuttals thereof, with the appellant enlisting the principles which can apply to her case, the law being now well settled in like cases. 7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined by us: (a) the application of multiplier of 17 instead of 18; The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 . In para 42 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another. (2009) 6 SCC 121. In the age group of 15- 25 years, the multiplier has to be 18 along with factoring in the extent of disability. The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to be 18 and not 17. (b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent disability of 31.1% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others (2018) 4 SCC 571 and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another (2017) 3 SCC 351. We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish case (supra) in para 8: 8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects: (i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident; (ii) Loss of income including future income; (iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities; (iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and (v) Loss of expectation of life. [emphasis supplied] The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident. In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine the disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over 1 ½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as under: Nature of injury: (i) compound fracture shaft left humerus (ii) fracture both bones left forearm (iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm (iv) fracture 3 rd , 4 th & 5 th metacarpals right hand (v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur (vi) fracture shaft left femur (vii) fracture both bones left leg We have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 12 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 59.3, considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case. (c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court. CONCLUSION

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

Explanation:
1[ds]6. We heard learned counsels for the parties. They have also filed short synopses of their respective claims and rebuttals thereof, with the appellant enlisting the principles which can apply to her case, the law being now well settled in like cases.7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined by us:(a) the application of multiplier of 17 instead of 18;The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 .   In para 42 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another. (2009) 6 SCC 121.   In the age group of 15- 25 years, the multiplier has to be 18 along with factoring in the extent of disability.The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to be 18 and not 17.(b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent disability of 31.1% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others (2018) 4 SCC 571     andSandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another (2017) 3 SCC 351.   We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish case (supra) in para 8:8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects:(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;(ii) Loss of income including future income;(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and(v) Loss of expectation of life.[emphasis supplied]The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine the disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over 1 ½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as under:Nature of injury:(i) compound fracture shaft left humerus(ii) fracture both bones left forearm(iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm(iv) fracture 3 rd , 4 th & 5 th metacarpals right hand(v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur(vi) fracture shaft left femur(vii) fracture both bones left legWe have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 12 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration.We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 59.3, considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case.(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court.