Parminder Singh vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed, briefly stated, are as follows:

Captain Kanwaljit Singh succumbed to his injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The Appellant – driver survived, but became permanently disabled.

2 2.4. The Appellant suffered from grievous injuries, including a head injury with traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, and had to undergo a hemi­craniotomy i.e. removal of front bone of the skull. He further suffered fracture of both jaw bones, and disfiguration of his face. Due to the severe head injury, his left arm and leg were not functioning properly. The Appellant had to undergo 5 surgeries for which he required successive hospitalizations. He had to visit PGI, Chandigarh on various dates for follow­up treatment as an outdoor patient.

2.5. The Appellant was assessed by a Medical Board on 08.09.2010, and on examination it was found to be an operated case with hemiplegia i.e. weakness of one half of the body on the left side. The doctor opined that the Appellant shall not be able to work as a labourer, or do agricultural work, or work as a driver. His disability was assessed at 75%, which was permanent in nature. 2.6. The Appellant filed a Claim Petition before the MACT, Panchkula against the owners and drivers of the two 3 offending trucks, along with the insurer of the two offending trucks viz. the Respondent – Insurance Company.

2.7. The Respondent – Insurance Company pleaded that the drivers of the two offending vehicles were driving the trucks without valid driving licenses. The Insurance Company produced a Licensing Clerk from the RTO Office at Mathura, U.P. who deposed that the driving licenses had not been issued in the name of the drivers by their office. The licenses had been issued in the name of some other persons.

The MACT proceeded on the basis of a notional income of Rs. 6,000/­ p.m., which worked out to Rs. 72,000/­ per annum, on the ground that the Appellant 4 did not produce any evidence, nor examine any witness to prove his income.

The loss of income due to functional disability was assessed at 75% which came to about Rs. 54,000/­ per annum. By applying the multiplier of 18 to the income of the Appellant, the compensation on account of loss of future earnings worked out to Rs. 9,72,000/­. The Appellant was awarded a total amount of Rs. 10,43,666/­ along with Interest @7.5% p.a. for the injuries suffered by him.

The High Court vide Interim Order dated 11.07.2017, directed the Appellant to be re­assessed by a Medical Board at the Government Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula. After going through the nature of injuries suffered, and the Disability Certificate, the High Court was of the view that the disability suffered by the Appellant was 100% insofar as his earning capacity was concerned, and he had become fully dependant on his family for survival.

The High Court vide the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2017 partially allowed the FAO, and enhanced the compensation awarded to Rs.21,06,000/­. The compensation was enhanced since the Appellant had suffered from 100% disability with respect to his earning capacity. The High Court granted Future Prospects @50% to the income of the Appellant. 6 The Respondent – Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation to the Appellant in the first instance, and recover the same from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks.

5.2. On the basis of the Affidavit filed by the employer of the Appellant, we accept that the income of the Appellant was Rs. 10,000/­ p.m. at the time of the accident, for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to him.

5.3. Taking the income of the Appellant as Rs. 10,000/­ p.m., with Future Prospects @50% as awarded by the High Court, the total income of the Appellant would come to Rs. 15,000/­ p.m. 5.4. The Appellant was 23 years old at the time when the accident occurred. Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of future earnings suffered by the Appellant would work out to Rs. 15,000 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 32,40,000/­. 8 5.5. The High Court has rightly assessed the functional disability of the Appellant as 100%. The Appellant is suffering from hemiplegia due to which the left side of his body is barely functioning. On account of the permanent disability suffered, the Appellant was deprived of getting married and having a normal family life. His capacity to earn a living has been completely shattered for the rest of his life, and he has a become fully dependant person.

find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or

In such circumstances, the High Court has rightly assessed the Appellant’s functional disability at 100% insofar as his loss of earning capacity is concerned. The Appellant is, therefore, awarded Rs. 32,40,000/­ towards loss of earning capacity.

In view of these uncontroverted facts, we deem it fit and appropriate to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/­ to the Appellant towards medical expenses and attendant charges.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Appellant is entitled to the following amounts:

10,000/­ p.m., and granting Future Prospects @50%;

ii) Rs. 7,50,000/­ to be awarded towards repeated hospitalizations and medical expenses for undergoing 5 surgeries and medical treatment;

iii) Rs. 10,00,000/­ to be awarded towards future medical expenses and attendant charges;

iv) Interest @ 9% awarded by the High Court from the date of the Claim Petition, till the date of recovery to be maintained.

15 7.2. We deem it just and fair to direct the Respondent – Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount of compensation as indicated in Para. 6 above, to the Appellant within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this judgment. The Respondent – Insurance Company is directed to make out a Demand Draft in the name of the Appellant, which can be used for his care for the rest of his life. The Respondent – Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks.

The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.