Devendra Sinhare vs Sandeep Kumar

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90176
1 MA-602-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 5 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 602 of 2014
CNR No.: MPHC010111882014
DEVENDRA SINHARE
Versus
SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Saini - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Paras Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
ORDER
This appeal is filed against the award dated 20.12.2013 passed in
Case No. 340 of 2008 by 2nd AMACT, Mandla for enhancement of
compensation.
2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation, contending that the learned Claims Tribunal
failed to properly appreciate the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained
by him and the resultant physical infirmity. It is submitted that the Tribunal
awarded a meagre amount without adequately compensating him for the
injuries suffered and their consequential effects.
3. The appellant further contends that the Tribunal failed to award
any amount towards the assistance of the attendant who accompanied him
during the treatment period. It is also argued that the Tribunal did not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 06-11-2026
19:09:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90176
2 MA-602-2014
adequately consider the loss of working capacity. Although the Tribunal, in

paragraph 12 of the impugned award, assessed the period during which the
appellant remained unable to work as three months, the medical evidence,
according to the appellant, indicates that he could resume work only after the
fracture had united on 24.11.2007. Therefore, the appellant claims
compensation for loss of income for a period of ten months, amounting to
Rs.56,000/-, instead of the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
4. On these grounds, the appellant submits that the compensation
awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is inadequate and deserves to be
enhanced suitably in the interest of justice.
5. The appellant contends that the disability certificate (Ex. P-10)
establishes that he sustained a depressed fracture of the right frontal bone and
a fracture of the right radius in the accident dated 06.01.2007. It is further
submitted that, after hospitalisation and approximately four months of
follow-up treatment, the Medical Board examined him on 24.11.2007 and
certified 28% permanent disability. On this basis, the appellant submits that
the Tribunal failed to properly consider the permanent disability and its
effect while determining compensation.
6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the
learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident and the injuries sustained by
the appellant were proved. However, it did not accept the claim of permanent
disability, observing that the Medical Officer had assessed 28% disability
without explaining the scientific basis or methodology adopted for such
assessment. The Tribunal further noted that the appellant's right hand had no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 06-11-2026
19:09:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90176
3 MA-602-2014
significant restriction in movement or functioning and that he was capable of

continuing his occupation as a halwai. It, therefore, declined to treat the
disability as permanent for the purpose of assessing loss of earning capacity.
7. The Tribunal nevertheless found that the injuries had temporarily
affected the appellant's ability to work and awarded a total compensation of
Rs.83,463/-, comprising Rs.24,000/- towards loss of working capacity,
Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and transportation, Rs.25,000/- towards pain
and suffering and Rs.24,463/- towards medical expenses. It also directed
payment of Rs.30,000/- by way of an account-payee cheque, with the
balance to be deposited in a fixed deposit.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and the evidence available on record, this Court finds that the
learned Claims Tribunal erred in discarding the disability certificate
(Ex.P/10), merely on the ground that the Medical Officer had not explained
the scientific methodology adopted for assessing disability. The certificate
was issued by the Medical Board after examining the appellant and recording
the injuries sustained by him, namely, a depressed fracture of the right
frontal bone and a fracture of the right radius. The Board assessed his
permanent physical disability at 28%. The certificate, read with the medical
evidence regarding the nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone,
establishes the appellant's permanent physical disability. The Tribunal's
finding to the contrary, therefore, cannot be sustained.
9. The appellant stated in his evidence that he runs a sweet shop in
the name of Gangour Sweet and earns Rs. 7,000/- per month. However, he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 06-11-2026
19:09:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90176
4 MA-602-2014
did not submit any documentary evidence to prove the existence or operation

of the said sweet shop. A person running a shop is ordinarily required to
obtain a shop licence under the Shops and Establishments Act, as well as the
necessary food licence, GST registration and other applicable registrations.
However, the appellant failed to produce any such document. Hence, the
Tribunal rightly disbelieved his testimony regarding his alleged business and
monthly income.
10. The Tribunal found that the appellant had incurred Rs. 24,463/-
towards medical treatment and awarded Rs. 24,000/- towards loss of income,
Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs. 10,000/- towards
transportation and special diet. Thus, the total compensation awarded was Rs.
83,463/-.
11. The date of the accident was 06.01.2007. As per the relevant
Government notification, the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled
worker on the date of the accident were Rs. 2,476/- per month. In my
opinion the income should be assessed at the rate of 2476 per month. The
Tribunal accepted the appellant's monthly income as Rs. 8,000/- and awarded
Rs. 24,000/- towards loss of income for a period of three months during
which he remained under treatment. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal,
without properly examining the evidence on record, accepted the appellant's
monthly income at Rs. 8,000/-, which appears to be excessive, particularly
having regard to the year 2007. Therefore, the appellant's monthly income of
Rs. 8,000/- cannot be accepted.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 06-11-2026
19:09:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90176
5 MA-602-2014
Kumar & Another, reported in AIR Online 2010 SC 144, summarized the

governing principles as follows:
"(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not
result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole
body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning
capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is
not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few
cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage
of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent
disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him
subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give
evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of
earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal
with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages
of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of
profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.
13. It is well settled that the loss of earning capacity cannot be
assessed merely on the basis of the percentage of permanent disability. The
functional disability may be either more or less than the medical disability,
depending upon the nature of the victim's occupation. For example, a 10%
disability in the right hand of a painter may result in almost 100% loss of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 06-11-2026
19:09:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90176
6 MA-602-2014
earning capacity, whereas a 40% disability in the right hand of an unskilled

or semi-skilled labourer may result in only 10% to 20% loss of earning
capacity, depending upon the nature of his work. In my opinion, the Tribunal
has errored in not considering the loss of future income according to
permanent disability at 28%.
14. It is well settled that the percentage of physical disability does
not necessarily correspond to the percentage of loss of earning capacity. The
latter has to be assessed with reference to the nature of the occupation and
the effect of the disability on the person's ability to perform his work. The
appellant was working as a halwai, an occupation requiring regular and
effective use of both hands. Having regard to the fracture of the right radius
and the resultant impairment of the right hand, this Court considers it
appropriate to assess the functional loss of earning capacity at 14 %,
notwithstanding the Medical Board's assessment of physical disability at
28%.
15. The appellant was aged about 50 years at the time of the
accident. In the absence of reliable documentary evidence of his actual
earnings, his income is assessed at Rs.2,476/- per month, in accordance with
the applicable minimum-wage notification under the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, for skilled labour as on the date of the accident, i.e., 06.01.2007. Since
the appellant was self-employed, an addition of 10% towards future
prospects is admissible in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 .
Accordingly, his monthly income, inclusive of future prospects, comes to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 06-11-2026
19:09:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90176
7 MA-602-2014
Rs.247/-, and the monthly income works out to Rs.2723.

16. Applying the functional loss of earning capacity at 14%, the
annual loss of income comes to Rs.4,574. Since the appellant was aged 50
years, the appropriate multiplier is 13, in terms of the principles laid down in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Thus, the
compensation towards future loss of earning capacity is calculated at
Rs.4574 × 13, which comes to Rs.59462/-.
17. So far as the loss of income during the treatment period is
concerned, the medical evidence indicates that the fracture had united only
on 24.11.2007. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and the period of
treatment, the appellant's inability to work for 6 months appears reasonable.
Accordingly, the amount of Rs.24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this
head is reasonable .
18. The appellant is also held entitled to an additional amount of
Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses, over and above the amount of
Rs.24,463/- already awarded by the Tribunal. The remaining amounts
awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of special diet and transportation
and pain and suffering are maintained.
Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellant is reassessed
as follows:
Sr. No. Particulars Amount
1. Monthly income Rs.2,476/-
2. Future prospects @ 10% Rs.247/-
Monthly income
inclusive of future
prospects
3.
Rs.2,723/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 06-11-2026
19:09:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90176
8 MA-602-2014
Loss of monthly earning
capacity @ 14%
permanent disability

4.
Rs.381/-
Loss of annual earning
5. Rs.4,574/-
capacity
Loss of future earning
6. Rs.59,462/-
capacity (Rs.4,574 × 13)
Medical expenses and
7. Rs.28,463/-
treatment
Loss of income for six
8. Rs.24,000/-
months
9. Transportation expenses Rs.10,000/-
10. Nutritious diet Rs.10,000/-
11. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.1,56,925/-
19. Thus, the total compensation to which the appellant is entitled is
1,56,925/-, Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 83,463/-., the
appellant is entitled to an enhancement of compensation of Rs.73462/- (Rs.
1,56,925/-, minus Rs. 83,463/-) along with 7.5 percent per annum interest
on the enhance amount from the date of filing claim petition to till
realization of said amount.
20. The amount, if any, already paid or deposited shall be adjusted.
The enhanced compensation shall be deposited before the learned Tribunal
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment.
21. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be entitled
to the enhanced compensation of Rs. Rs.73462/-. The learned Tribunal shall
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 06-11-2026
19:09:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90176
9 MA-602-2014
disburse the amount to the appellant in accordance with his entitlement. All

other findings and directions of the learned Tribunal, including the liability
of the respondents, which are not modified herein, shall remain intact.
22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award passed by the
learned Claims Tribunal stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Office is directed to issue a certificate as per order dated 27.6.2014 to refund
the Court Fees of Rs.5,600/- to the counsel for the appellant.
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
MSP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 06-11-2026
19:09:00