Case: Dinesh Singh Vs. Bajaj Allianz Genl.Insurance Co.Ltd &amp;Ors

2.The appellant is the claimant. He filed claim petition being M.V.C. No. 515 of 2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hubli, stating that he is B.E. Degree holder in Metallurgy. He is aged 24 years and was working as Quality Engineer in Hospet Steels Ltd. On 13.04.2004 while he was returning to his home from the company he met with an accident. In the accident, he sustained grievous and fracture injuries to the knee and also left hand. He was taken to a hospital in Hubli for treatment, where his left leg was amputated. He was in the said hospital as an inpatient till June, 2004. Thereafter, he took treatment at Tulasidas Gopalji Charitable and Dhakleswar Temple Trust and All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Bombay and he is still under treatment and presently walking with the assistance of an artificial limb.3. According to him, due to amputation of his left leg, he suffered 100% permanent disability. At the time of accident, he was getting monthly salary ofan Engineer. Because of the disability, he had to resign his job as an Engineer and take up a desk job in Industrial Development Bank of India. Being a bachelor, he has lost prospects of getting married. He thus laid the claim for a total compensation of Rs.40,75,000/under different heads for the injuries sustained by him.4. The respondent resisted the claim of the appellant. The Tribunal considering the evidence placed by the appellant, both oral and documentary, awarded in all Rs.30,60,160/as compensation to the appellant under different heads. Against the said award, both the appellant as well as the respondent filed appeals before the High Court of Karnataka, the appellant seeking enhancement, while the respondent for reduction. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.30,60,160/

Court's reasoning:
8. The fact that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is B.E. Degree holder in Metallurgy and was working as Quality Engineer in Hospet Steels Ltd. Though the appellant contended that at the time of accident he was earning Rs.17,200/per month, but in the absence of any document produced by the appellant to prove the same, the Tribunal as well as the High Court, took the monthly salary of the appellant at Rs.12,840/as evidenced by Ex.P35, and we do not find any error with the said income taken by the Tribunal and the High Court. The appellant due to the injuries sustained by him, undisputedly, was out of employment for a period of two years. However, the High Court committed an error in holding that the appellant was out of employment for only six months. As the appellant was out of employment for a period of two years (24 months), his loss of earnings for the said period would be Rs.12,840/x 24 =which the Tribunal has rightly awarded.We have considered the material placed before us, particularly the evidence of the Doctor, who stated that the appellant suffered 60% disability of the total body, and in hisdenied the suggestion that the appellant does not require any further treatment. The fact that the appellant has resigned as Quality Engineer from Hospet Steels Ltd and took up desk job in Industrial Development Bank of India because of his permanent disability, suffered by him in the accident is not in dispute. Obviously, because of the permanent disability suffered by the appellant, who is an Engineer by profession, cannot take up such profession, which requires moving from one place to other place. Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court that the appellant has not suffered any financial loss because of permanent disability having regard to the fact that subsequently he took up employment in Industrial Development Bank of India asOfficer, cannot be sustained. Once the permanent disability is fixed, taking into consideration, its impact on the employment/profession of the claimant, the compensation has to be awarded. Since the disability suffered by the appellant, which is fixed at 60% and which is permanent in nature, impacted his employment and future prospects, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly determined the compensation Rs.12,840/x 12 x 17 = Rs.26,19,360/towards loss of future earnings, and taking into consideration the 60% permanent disability suffered by the appellant, awarded him the actual compensation under the head ‘loss of futureThe compensation payable to the appellant under the heads ‘loss ofand ‘loss of marriagealso requires enhancement. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,50,000/under the head ‘loss ofWe feel it appropriate to enhance the same by another Rs.Upon such enhancement, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.3,50,000/under the head ‘loss ofamenities of life.13. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/towards ‘loss of marriageWe feel it appropriate to enhance the same by anotherand on such enhancement, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/under the head ‘ loss of marriage prospects.14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/towards future medical expenses. Considering the fact that the appellant still requires treatment and has to change his artificial limb as and when required, we are of the considered opinion that the compensation under the said head needs enhancement, and accordingly, we enhance the same by another Rs.In view of the evidence produced by the appellant that he has spent about Rs.3,10,000/towards medical expenditure, including conveyance and attendance fee, for the period he was under treatment, we are of the opinion that the same needs to be granted, and accordingly, we grant the same as awarded by the Tribunal, and find fault with the High Court in reducing the same.