SR. ANTHONY @ ANTHONY SWAMY vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2551 OF 2020 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 1738 of 2018) SRI ANTHONY alias ANTHONY SWAMY ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is in appeal aggrieved by the order of the High Court, claiming inadequacy of compensation granted to him in a motor accident case. 3. The   appellant   was   travelling   in   a   bus   of   the   respondent Corporation and met with an accident on 19.02.2010, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver who hit a lorry from behind. As   a   consequence   of   the   injuries   suffered,   the   left   leg   of   the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUMARI BAJAJ Date: 2020.06.10 17:00:42 IST Reason: appellant   had   to   be   amputated.   The   Tribunal   awarded   a compensation of Rs.4,08,850/­. The High Court in appeal enhanced 1 the same to Rs.5,10,350/­. The appeal preferred by the respondent Corporation was dismissed.   4. Shri   Ashwin   Kotemath,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant submitted that the compensation enhanced by the High Court is niggardly and grossly inadequate considering the nature of injuries suffered.  The appellant was a painter by vocation. He had a daily income of Rs.300/­ cumulated at Rs.9,000/­ per month, supported by  the   evidence   of   his   employer   PW.2,   which  has   been  wrongly rejected.  The permanent disability of the appellant contrary to the evidence of PW.3, Dr. S. Ramachandra the treating Doctor, has been wrongly fixed at 25% of the whole body without any reasoning to support  the   same,   in  the   nature  of   the   injury,   suffering,  future medical   treatment   and   loss   of   future   income   caused   to   the appellant. 5. Shri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the High Court has reasonably enhanced the compensation and   it   calls   for   no   interference.   The   appellant   had   failed   to substantiate   the   claimed   income   with   substantive   evidence.   The 2 extent   of   disability   suffered   has   been   adequately   assessed.   The evidence   of   the   employer   and   the   treating   doctor   have   all   been considered adequately.  6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The appellant was initially taken to the government hospital on the date   of   the   accident   but   was   shifted   to   a   private   hospital   on 25.02.2010 where he remained as an inpatient till 16.09.2010 and also underwent surgery requiring amputation of his left leg from above   the   knee.     PW.3,   the   treating   doctor,   deposed   that   the appellant had suffered Type III ‘B’ commuted fracture of Tibia and Fibula   of   the   left   leg   with   an   active   infection   of   Chronic Osteomyelitis   emanating   foul   smell   which   prevented   him   from mixing   and   socialising   in   public.   There   was   no   alternative   to amputation and fixation of an artificial leg. The physical disability suffered by the appellant of the left lower limb was assessed at 75% which was about 37.5% of the whole body. PW.3 further opined that the appellant had suffered shortening of the left lower limb by 3 cms. He could not stand independently or walk without aid of a walker or attendant. The appellant cannot sit cross legged, squat or 3 use an Indian toilet. He could not climb up and down a staircase. The appellant was incapable of any manual work including painting. The appellant who was 45 years of age, considering average life expectancy   of   65   years   would   require   at   least   three   further replacements of the artificial limb in his lifetime, the cost of which was assessed at approximately between Rs.75,000 to Rs.1,50,000/­. 7.  The High Court enhanced the monthly income of the appellant to   Rs.5,500/­.   He   has   been   awarded   a   sum   of   Rs.1,00,000/­ towards   pain   and   suffering   and   Rs.7,350/­   towards   medical expenses along with Rs.21,000/­ for attendant charges.  The loss of earnings during the period of treatment has been enhanced by the High Court to Rs.66,000/­. Conveyance charges have been paid at Rs.10,000/­.  We find no reason to interfere to the aforesaid extent.  8.  The physical disability of the appellant without any reasoning has been assessed at 25% of the whole body with which we are unable to concur. The compensation granted towards loss of future earning   on   account   of   disability   at   Rs.2,31,000/­   is   considered grossly inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case, as 4 also   the   compensation   of   Rs.50,000/­   towards   future   medical expenses and only Rs.25,000/­ towards loss of amenities.      9.  PW.3 had assessed the physical functional disability of the left leg of the appellant at 75% and total body disability at 37.5%. The High Court has considered it proper to assess the physical disability at 25% of  the  whole  body only.  There is  no  discussion for this reduction in percentage, much less any consideration of the nature of permanent functional disability suffered by the appellant. The extent of physical functional disability, in the facts of the case has to   be   considered   in   a   manner   so   as   to   grant   just   and   proper compensation to the appellant towards loss of future earning. The earning capacity of the appellant as on the date of the accident stands completely negated and not reduced.  He has been rendered permanently incapable of working as a painter or do any manual work. Compensation for loss of future earning therefore has to be proper   and   just   to   enable   him   to   live   a   life   of   dignity   and   not compensation which is elusive.   If the 75% physical disability has rendered   the   appellant   permanently   disabled   from   pursuing   his normal vocation or any similar work, it is difficult to comprehend 5 the grant of compensation to him in ratio to the disability to the whole body. The appellant is therefore held entitled to compensation for loss of future earning based on his 75% permanent physical functional disability recalculated with the salary of Rs.5,500/­with multiplier of 14 at Rs. 6,93,000/­.  10.    2011 (1) SCC 343 Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another,  lucidly sets out the principles for grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional disability as follows: “10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on   his   earning   capacity.   The   Tribunal   should   not mechanically   apply   the   percentage   of   permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity,   arising   from   a  permanent   disability   will  be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals  wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular   extent   (percentage)  of   permanent  disability would   result   in   a   corresponding   loss   of   earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning   capacity   to   the   extent   (percentage)   of 6 permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect   of   the   permanent   disability   on   the   earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier   method   used   to   determine   loss   of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on   appreciation   of   evidence   and   assessment,   the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity   as   a   result   of   the   permanent   disability,   is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of  course, the Tribunal will adopt   the   said   percentage   for   determination   of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in  Arvind Kumar Mishra  v.  New India Assurance Co. Ltd.   and   Yadava Kumar   v.   National Insurance Co. Ltd. ) xxxx xxxx xxxx 13.   Ascertainment   of   the   effect   of   the   permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life).   The   second   step   is   to   ascertain   his   avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether ( i ) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood,   or   ( ii )   whether   in   spite   of   the   permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the   activities   and   functions,   which   he   was   earlier carrying   on,   or   ( iii )   whether   he   was   prevented   or 7 restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 14.   For   example,   if   the   left   hand   of   a   claimant   is amputated,   the   permanent   physical   or   functional disablement   may   be   assessed   around   60%.   If   the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the   loss   of   his   left   hand   may   not   result   in   loss   of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he   could   perform   his   clerical   functions;   and   in   that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of “loss of future earnings”, if the claimant continues   in   government   service,   though   he   may   be awarded   compensation   under   the   head   of   loss   of amenities   as   a   consequence   of   losing   his   hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post   with   lesser   emoluments,   in   which   case   there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future   earning   capacity,   taking   note   of   the   reduced earning capacity. 11. In   Nagarajappa   vs.   Divisional   Manager,   Oriental ,   2011 (13) SCC 323, the physical Insurance Company Limited 8 disability of the upper limb was determined as 68% in proportion to 22­23% of the whole­body.  This court opined as follows:  “9. On perusal of the doctor’s evidence with respect to the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, the appellant was found, inter alia, to be suffering from the following disabilities as a result of the accident—“gross deformity of the left forearm, wrist and hand, wasting and weakness of the muscles of the left upper limb and shortening of the left upper limb by 1 cm”. As a result, the doctor stated that the appellant could not work as a coolie and could not also do any other manual work. The doctor assessed permanent residual physical disability of the upper limb at 68% and 22­23% of the whole body. 10. The appellant is working as a manual labourer, for which he requires the use of both his hands. The fact that the   accident   has   left   him   with   one   useless   hand   will severely affect his ability to perform his work as a coolie or any other manual work, and this has also been certified by the doctor. Thus, while awarding compensation it has to be kept in mind that the appellant is to do manual work for the rest of his life without full use of his left hand, and this is bound to affect the quality of his work and also his ability to find work considering his disability. Hence, while computing   loss   of   future   income,   disability   should   be taken   to   be   68%   and   not   20%,   as   was   done   by   the Tribunal and the High Court. Our view is supported by the ratio in  Raj Kumar  and from the fact that the appellant is severely hampered and perhaps forever handicapped from performing his occupation as a coolie.” 12. The High Court also erred in granting a sum of Rs.50,000/­ only   towards   future   medical   expenses.   PW.3   deposed   that   the 9 appellant would require three more replacements of the artificial left leg during his lifetime.  We consider it proper to enhance the same by Rs.2,50,000/­   in addition to that granted by the High Court. The   compensation   granted   towards   loss   of   amenities   is   also enhanced   to   Rs.50,000/­   considering   that   the   appellant   was deprived of social mixing as deposed by PW.3. 13.  Thus,   the   compensation   awarded   by   the   High   Court   is modified and recalculated as under:

10 14. We modify the award of the High Court accordingly to be paid along with interest @ 6 per cent from the date of petition till the realization. 15. The appeal is allowed.  .……………………….J.   (R.F. Nariman) ………………………..J.    (Navin Sinha)   ………………………..J.    (B.R. Gavai)   New Delhi, June 10, 2020 11