Gyanwardhan Parashar vs Ram Ladetey Yadav and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide award dated 29th March, 2006 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,26,168 for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident involving the vehicle insured with the respondent Insurance Company. Contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in assailing the award of the Tribunal is that appellant was working as a sales executive in M/s. Dunlop Tyres Company. His basic salary as per Salary Certificate issued by Falcon Tyres Ltd. Exb. 57 at the relevant was Rs. 1,825 per month and his gross salary was Rs. 5,999.13 per month inclusive of other usual allowances. In view of his disability of 63% is that his right leg was amputed, due to which his proficiency as a sales executive would be completely substantially reduced. His total income was proved to be Rs. 14,000 per month however the Tribunal has taken undue influence that after accident, when he was re-appointed as a Cashier in Essar Cellphone Company and was receiving Rs. 3,750 per month and on that basis, awarded only a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs. 1,75,000 cumulatively for pain and suffering and permanent disability. No amount has been awarded for pain and suffering separately. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that if the appellant suffered disability of 63%, it does not mean that he was not working anywhere for earning his livelihood. Appellant was earning Rs. 14,000 per month in the year 2002 before accident and had a bright career. He is a post graduate in M.B.A. and prior to employment in the Falcon Tyres Company, he was working as a Sales Executive in M/s. Dunlop Tyres Company receiving salary of Rs. 14,000 per month. The Tribunal ought to have therefore awarded compensation while applying the structured formula of adopting multiplier of 18 keeping in view his age at the relevant time as 22 years. It was further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that even if appellant was earning Rs. 3,750 per month after accident while working as Cashier in the Essar Cellphone Company, Tribunal was not justified in not relying on the income of the appellant at the time of accident. Salary certificate of Mr. Ghan Vardhan Parashar, Exb. 56 of Essar Cellphone Company, dated 5th August, 2002 is on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also produced on record Exb. 53 letter dated 21st May, 2005 written by the Otto Book Health Care India Pvt. Ltd. to petitioner as well as payment details dated 21st May, 2005 to argue that the said Health Care Pvt. Ltd. estimated cost of Rs. 1,33,000 for TT Modular Prosthesis with C-Walk Foot and Rs. 1,31,500 for recurring cots for 10 years. Thus, total sum of Rs. 2,64,500 was estimated to be incurred by the said Health Care Pvt. Ltd. to be spent for artificial limb. Only medical expenses of Rs. 26,168 has been awarded and that aspect has been completely lost sight of. It was argued that the appellant was engaged prior to accident but due to accident, his engagement was broken. It is, therefore, prayed that the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced.

Learned Counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and has argued that after the accident, monthly income of the appellant has been proved to Rs. 3,750 per month on the salary certificate of Rs. 5,999.13 per month. Appellant failed to prove his monthly income of Rs. 14,000. Learned Counsel for the respondents has cited the judgments of Supreme Court in Ponnumany alias Krishnan and Another Vs. V.A. Mohanan and Others, and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, , and argued that disability on the part of the body, cannot be taken as disability on the whole body.

Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award, I find that when the salary of the appellant at the time of accident at Rs. 6,000 per month was proved from the salary slip Exb. 57, therefore the learned Tribunal erred in law while accepting the monthly salary of the appellant at Rs. 3,750 per month only. In the present case, job of the appellant was that of the Sales Executive; it was because he acquired the degree of M.B.A. in Sales Management. Contention of the respondents that percentage of disability of 63% of the injured should be reduced in terms of whole body as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra), cannot be accepted because this is not that kind of the case where disability should be reduced because efficiency of the appellant has been substantially curtailed. This has also affected his future progress in the career. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, : Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, : Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, =dated 23rd April, 2012 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3723 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24489 of 2010, in which the Supreme Court while deviating from the judgment of Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , held that the workers and employees in private and unorganized sectors should also be held entitled to future prospects. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in that category would be rather affected more adversely. It was held that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income.

Tribunal in my considered view was not justified in not awarding any compensation for engrafting of artificial limb despite the evidence produced to that effect. Learned Tribunal awarded meagre amount of compensation towards the pain and suffering. Learned Tribunal also erred in law while not awarding anything towards the future prospects. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 29th March, 2006 is modified in the following terms:

(a) Rs. 6,000 p.m. accepted income.

(b) Rs. 6,000 x 12 = 72,000.

(c) 72,000 x 60% = 43,200.

(d) 30% of Rs. 43,200 is Rs. 12,960

(e) 43,200 + 12,960 = 56,160.

(f) Rs. 1,00,000 is awarded for pain and suffering.

(g) Rs. 1,00,000 is awarded for engrafting of artificial limb.

(h) Rs. 26,168 awarded for actual medical expenses is maintained.

(i) Rs. 25,000 awarded for transportation and nutritious diet is maintained.

(j) Rs. 1,75,000 for permanent disability is maintained.

(k) 56,160 +1,00,000 + 1,00,000 + 26,168 + 25,000 +1,75,000 = 4,82,328.

(l) Award of Rs. 2,26,168 is enhanced to Rs. 4,82,328.

(m) The claimant-appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 2,56,160 from the date of filing claim petition.

(n) Record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.