Shaji Francis S/o Francis vs Divisional Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd

T.R. Ravi, J

On 25.02.2013, while the appellant was riding his scooter, he was hit by a car driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant suffered severe head injury, diffuse axonal injury, fracture (R) zygoma, contusion right forearm, right pinna lacerated and sutured, right preorbital edema, swelling over right forearm, extensive abrasions over right side of face and limbs. The appellant had to undergo multiple surgeries and he has become paraplegic and is bedridden. He was treated as an inpatient for 78 days. An amount of Rs.4,27,084/- was spent towards medical expenses alone. The Medical Board attached to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam assessed his permanent disability as 87%. According to the appellant, he was working as a Captain in Hotel Ambady, Thekkady and was getting a monthly income of Rs.12,000/- at the time of accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.23,95,000/- as against a claim of Rs.69,01,000/- limited to 35 lakhs. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant has preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

Heard.

The primary contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal went wrong in adopting a notional income of Rs.7,500/-. It is submitted that going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,  Royal  Sundaram  Alliance  Insurance  Co.Ltd., reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951], a coolie would have been earning Rs.9,000/- in the year 2013. The Apex Court in Syed Sadique & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in [2014 (2) SCC 735] considered the case of a vegetable vendor who was assessed a functional disability of 85% and held that he would have been earning Rs.6,500/- per month and added an increment of 50% towards future prospects. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that in the judgment in MACA No.2101/2015 dated 27.9.2018, this Court had considered the case of a mason who met with an accident in 2013 and fixed the monthly income as Rs.10,000/- and added 25% towards future prospects. The counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of Rs.7,500/-applied by the Tribunal is unjustified. It is also submitted that the amount awarded towards loss of earning has to be modified in accordance with the income to be applied. The counsel also contends that the appellant is entitled to increased compensation under the head future bystander expenses and pain and sufferings. Reference is made to the decision in Kajal V. Jagdish Chand reported in [2020 (1) KLT 743], to contend that it is a case where compensation has to be awarded for bystander throughout life following the multiplier method.

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation. In the light of the judgments quoted above, a sum of Rs.10,000/-can be taken as the monthly income and having regard to his age and occupation, 25% of the income is to be added as future prospects. The income for the purpose of calculating the permanent disability would hence be Rs.12,500/-. The Tribunal has calculated the compensation for permanent disability treating the functional disability as 100%. Thus the appellant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-(10000x125%x12x14) under the head permanent disability. After reducing the amount of Rs.12,60,000/-awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,40,000/- under the said head. Regarding bystander's expenses, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Kajal (supra) that in cases of this nature, the bystander's expenses should also be calculated by applying the multiplier method. Considering an amount of Rs.7,500/- as payment for bystander's expenses for a month, applying the multiplier method, the appellant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.12,60,000/-(7500x12x14) towards bystander's expenses. After deducting the sum of Rs.1 lakh awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant will be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.11,60,000/- under the said head. The loss of earning for six months at the rate of Rs.10,000/-per month will come to Rs.60,000/-. After deducting the sum of Rs.45,000/- granted by the Tribunal, the appellant will be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of earning. The amounts granted by the Tribunal under other heads are reasonable and do not require any modification.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is awarded an enhanced compensation of ₹ 20,15,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fifteen Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (21.05.2013) till the date of realisation, with proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with the interest and proportionate costs, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting any amount to which the appellant is liable towards balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of the compensation to the appellants shall be in accordance with law.