Case: Jagdish Vs. Mohan &amp; Others

The appellant was injured in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 12,81,228/for the injuries suffered by him. The High Court enhanced the award of compensation by an amount of Rs.Interest of 7.5 per cent per annum has been awarded from the date of the filing of the claim. The appellant seeks an enhancement of compensation.2. The appellant was 24 years of age when the accident took place on 24 November 2011. The accident occurred at 4pm when the appellant and another person were riding on a motor cycle. The appellant who was riding the motor cycle at a moderate speed indicated to a dumper which was ahead of him to allow him to pass. When the appellant was passing the vehicle, it swerved on the drivers side and hit the motor cycle of the appellant. The appellant was injured in the course of the accident.3. The nature of the injuries is evident from the following extract from the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 2,for the claimant due to the injuries received by the claimant he has suffered 90% permanent disability...The claimant came to give evidence in the matter...looking at both the hands of the claimant it was noted that...the hands are not able to perform any function. It has also been submitted on behalf of the claimant that the claimant himself is unable to eat food or go to toilet for which he requires the assistance of someone else as both his hands are unable to perform any function as it has been stated in Exhibit 168. In such situation if a person of labour class suffers from an injury due to which 90% of both his hands are unable to perform any function then in such situation the claimant would have same difficulty which would be the permanent disability of his body. Therefore relying on Exhibit 168 I hold that there has been loss of 90% of earning ability of the claimant".The Tribunal found that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the dumper and that the appellant was liable to be compensated for the injuries sustained by him.5. In computing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the appellant was a carpenter and had claimed that he was in receipt of an income of Rs. 6,000/per month. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal took the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.The appellant having been found to suffer from 90 per cent disability, the loss of the future monthly income was computed at Rs.The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 and held that the appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of future income of Rs. 7,87,320/(L 3645 X 12 X 18). The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1.80 lakhs on account of mental and physical hardship and agony, Rs. 90,000/for loss of comfort, Rs. 25,000/for expenses and Rs. 95,908/on account of medical expenses. An amount of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded for attendant charges. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 12,81,228/as compensation on which interest was allowed at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. No amount was awarded towards expenses for future treatment.6. In appeal, the High Court awarded an additional amount of Rs.The High Court directed that if the enhanced amount is not deposited within 8 weeks, it would carry interest at 9 per cent per annum.

Court's reasoning:
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 followingPain, 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.Having regard to these principles, it would be now appropriate to assess the case of the appellant for enhancement of compensation. The accident took place on 24 November 2011. The appellant was a skilled carpenter andThe claim of the appellant that his earnings were Rs. 6,000/per month cannot be discarded. This claim cannot be regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a realistic assessment of the situation on the date of the accident.10. In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend toindividuals. In the case of aperson, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs. 2400/towards loss of futureTribunal has noted that the appellant is unable to even eat or to attend to a visit to the toilet without the assistance of an attendant. In this background, it would be a denial of justice to compute the disability at 90 per cent. The disability is indeed total. Having regard to the age of the appellant, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18. In the circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the loss of income, including future prospects, would be Rs.In addition to this amount, the appellant should be granted an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of pain, suffering and loss ofappellant should be allowed an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs towards future medical expenses.