NEERUPAM MOHAN MATHUR vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4814         OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.6282 of 2011) NEERUPAM  MOHAN MATHUR        …. APPELLANT VERSUS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.                       ….RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal is filed by the claimant­appellant  against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court at  JUDGMENT Chandigarh in FAO No.693 of 1989, whereby the High Court  granted a meager enhancement in the amount of compensation  awarded   to   him   by   the   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal  (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). 3. The facts involved in the present case are as follows: The   claimant   was   employed   as   a   'Product   Design  Engineer' in M/s. Utility Engineers (India) Ltd. Dharuhera,  1 Page 1 District Mohindergarh, Haryana.   The employer had arranged  for    a  Chartered  Bus belonging to M/s. National Tours &  nd Travels,   F­4,   East   of   Kailash,   New   Delhi,   2   respondent 

respondent before the Tribunal was the driver of the said  nd bus.   On   2   September,   1987,   the   claimant   along   with   his  colleagues   was   coming   back   from   Dharuhera   in   the   said  Chartered Bus bearing Registration No.DBP­805. At about 6  p.m.  when the said Bus reached near the turning of village  Shikohpur on Gurgaon­Jaipur Highway, it came across a truck  coming from opposite direction which was crossing  a camel  cart in front of it.  Pritam Singh, who was driving the bus  at a very high speed, carelessly, rashly and negligently  JUDGMENT attempted to cross the above said truck without keeping the  Bus   to   the   extreme   left   hand   side.   This   resulted   in   a  collision of  right  hand side of the bus with the  truck,  which resulted in severance of right hand of the claimant  who was sitting in the right side of the bus.   The said  accident   and   the   mishappenings   thereto   were   witnessed   by  the occupants of the bus.  One Anil Kumar,    PW­3, who was  also travelling in the said Chartered Bus at the time of  2 Page 2 the said accident, took the claimant to the Civil Hospital,  Gurgaon from where he was given medical first­aid and he  was   referred   to   Safdarjang   Hospital,   New   Delhi.     The 

different Hospitals at various stages.  The matter was also  reported to the Police by Anil Kumar, PW­3. 4. The cliamant filed a petition under Section 110­A of  the   Motor   Vehicles   Act,   1988   claiming   Rs.12   lacs   as   the  compensation   for   the   loss   of   the   right   hand   which   was  amputated near the shoulder, on various counts.   5. The respondents contested the claim of the claimant.  The Tribunal after perusing oral and documentary evidence  held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent  JUDGMENT driving   by   Driver,   Pritam   Singh   of   Bus   No.DBP­805.     The  Issue   No.1   was   thus   decided   in   favour   of   the   claimant.  While   assessing   the   compensation   under   Issue   No.2,   the  Tribunal   awarded   a   compensation   of   Rs.3,20,000/­   with  interest at the rate of 12%  per annum.  6. In the appeal preferred by the claimant the High Court  taken   a   loss   of   earning   capacity   to   70%   in   view   of  3 Page 3 permanent   disability   of   right   hand.   Based   on   salary   of  Rs.3,000/­ per month as claimed by the claimant adding 50%  on the same for future prospects of increase and applying 

The   High   Court   made   the   following   observation   while  granting compensation against different heads: “ 4.  In my view, the issue relating to death or injury   would   have   no   serious   difference   in   the   choice   of  multiplicand   or   the   multiplier.   If   at   all,   case   of  injury that completely disables a person for life is  more poignant than a case of death and that is why  Courts   do   not   always   provide   for   deductions   for  personal expenses in case claims for injuries. Indeed,  the deduction itself will be meaningless for unlike a  case of death, we need to make provision for his own  living   as   well   as   the   living   of   persons,   who   are  dependent   on   injured   person.   The   loss   in   case   of  injury   where   there   is   an   amputation  and  there   is   a  high   percentage   of   loss of   earning   capacity,   in   my  view, the principle laid down in  Sarla Verma  providing  for a prospect of future increase in salary cannot be  ruled out. I would, therefore, take the multiplicand  to be Rs.4,500/­ which is the salary of Rs.3,000/­ per  month   plus   50%   of   the   same   for   future   prospects  of   increase.   For   a  person,  who  was  aged   32  years,   the   appropriate multiplier ought to have been 16 and not  15 and I would, therefore, take the annual income to  be   Rs.54,000/­   and   adopting   a   multiplier   of   16,   I  would   take   the   income   to   be   Rs.8,64,000/­.   Having  regard   to   the   fact   that   I   have   taken   the   loss   of  earning capacity to be 70%, the amount that would bear  to   70%   of   Rs.8,64,000/­   is   the   amount   that   shall  become payable for loss of earning capacity. The loss  of income will be Rs.6,04,800/­. I shall retain the  medical   expenses   of   Rs.10,000/­,   Rs.15,000/­   for  attendant's   charges   and   Rs.25,000/­   as   provided   for  pain and suffering by the Tribunal. If the same are  JUDGMENT 4 Page 4

7. The   claimant   has   challenged   the   order   passed   by   the  High Court on three counts namely: JUDGMENT (i) The permanent disability has been wrongly assessed  at 70% which should have been 100% in the case of the  claimant. (ii) The lower amount has been paid towards cost of  prosthesis and (iii)   Lesser   amounts   have   been   allowed   towards  pecuniary and non­pecuniary damages. 5 Page 5 8. Per   contra   according   to   the   learned   counsel   for   the  Insurer,   the   High   Court   allowed   higher   amount   than   the  amount of compensation to which claimant was entitled. 

the   earning   capacity   adopted   the   percentage   of   loss   of  earning capacity as per the Workmen's Compensation Act and  has taken a loss of earning capacity to 70% for amputation  of arm above elbow. 10. Admittedly, claimant is a graduate in Science from Agra  University and Post Graduate Diploma holder in Mechanical  Engineering with specialization in Refrigeration and Air­ conditioning.  He was a young man of 32 years at the time  of accident.  Before the Tribunal, the claimant appeared as  PW­4 and stated that he had worked with many companies like  JUDGMENT Blue Star, etc. and has extensive experience. Ultimately he  st joined M/s. Utility Engineers (India) Ltd. on 1  September,  1986 as Product and Development Engineer and  was promoted  from Middle Management Group to Senior Management Group on  the   basic   pay   of   Rs.1400/­   to   Rs.1500/­   plus   other  incidental benefits like special increment of Rs.100.   At  the time of accident, he was drawing basic pay of Rs.1900/­  6 Page 6 plus   other   incidental   benefits   total   amounting   to   about  Rs.3,000/­   per   month.     His   job   was   designing   of   air­ conditioning project.  

70 years and he was expected to earn up to the said age as  a   specialist   in   designing,   refrigeration   and   air  conditioning.   After loss of the right arm due to accident  he   has   become   100%   disabled   as   his   earning   capacity   has  gone   down   to   zero   in   doing   the   specialized   work   like  designing,   refrigeration   and   air   conditioning.     The  accident   has   completely   jeopardized   his   mastery   on   the  subject   and   his   chances   of   future   promotion   and  professional engagements have been virtually vanished.   12. The question regarding “Assessment of future loss of  JUDGMENT earnings   due   to   permanent   disability”   was   considered   by  this Court in  Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another,    (2011)  1 SCC 343,  wherein this Court held as follows: “8.   Disability refers to any restriction or lack of  ability   to   perform   an   activity   in   the   manner  considered   normal   for   a   human   being.   Permanent  disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss  of use of some part of the body, found existing at  the end of the period of treatment and recuperation,  after   achieving   the   maximum   bodily   improvement   or  recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder  7 Page 7

9.   The   percentage   of   permanent   disability   is  expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole  body,  or   more  often  than  not,  with   reference   to  a  particular limb. When a disability certificate states  that the injured has suffered permanent disability to  an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not  the same as 45% permanent disability with reference  to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb  (or   part   of   the   body)   expressed   in   terms   of   a  percentage   of   the   total   functions   of   that   limb,  obviously   cannot   be   assumed   to   be   the   extent   of  disability   of   the   whole   body.   If   there   is   60%  permanent   disability   of   the   right   hand   and   80%  permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean  that   the   extent   of   permanent   disability   with  reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus  60%). If different parts of the body have suffered  different percentages of disabilities, the sum total  thereof   expressed   in   terms   of   the   permanent  disability   with  reference  to   the  whole  body  cannot  obviously exceed 100%. JUDGMENT 8 Page 8

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.)” JUDGMENT 9 Page 9 13. In   the   present   case,   the   percentage   of   permanent  disability   has   not   been   expressed   by   the   Doctors   with  reference   to   the   full   body   or   with   reference   to   a 

of   injuries   that   he   is   not   in   a   position   in   doing   the  specialized   job   of   designing,   refrigeration   and   air  conditioning.     For   the   said   reason,   claimant's   services  were terminated by his employer but that does not mean that  the claimant is not capable to do any other job including  the desk job.  Having qualification of B.SC degree and Post  Diploma in Mechanical Engineering he can perform any job  where   application   of   mind   is   required   than   any   physical  work.   JUDGMENT 14. In view of the forgoing discussion we find no grounds  made out to interfere with the finding of the High Court  which determined the percentage of loss of earning capacity  to 70% adopting the percentage of loss of earning capacity  as per the Workmen's Compensation Act.   The total loss of  income   thus   rightly   calculated   by   the   High   Court   at  Rs.6,04,800/­.  10 Page 10 15. However   from   the   award   passed   by   the   Tribunal   and  judgment   rendered   by   the   High   Court,   we   find   no   ground  shown   by   the   Tribunal   or   the   High   Court   in   providing 

16. The Tribunal in its award has noticed that the claimant  had to go to Hospital every 10 days for treatment. He was  admitted in different Hospitals and was under treatment as  indoor patient for about one and a half months.  Claimant's  hand was amputated and skin was grafted.   Inspite of the  same, no amount has been allowed towards loss of earning  during   the   period   of   treatment   nor   any   amount   allowed  towards future medical expenses.   JUDGMENT 17. From the High Court's judgment and award passed by the  Tribunal it is clear that the claimant placed evidence to  suggest that the cost of prosthesis was Rs.75,000/­ . It  was   accepted   at   Bar   that   the   cost   of   prosthesis   was  Rs.1,60,000/­.   Inspite of the same the Tribunal did not  chose to allow any amount towards prosthesis and the High  Court allowed a petty amount of Rs.50,000/­ for the same.  11 Page 11 No separate amount has been allowed towards travelling to  the   Hospitals   though   the   claimant   was   required   to   go   to  attend   the   Hospital   every   10   days   for   treatment.     We 

18. Having regards to the fact that the Tribunal and the  High Court have not allowed reasonable amount for different  pecuniary   and   the   non­pecuniary   damages,   we,   therefore,  with   a   view   to   do   complete   justice   to   the   claimant   re­ determined   the   amount   of   compensation   on   the   following  terms: Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

12 Page 12

Total            Rs.11,64,300                      13 Page 13 19. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay the  claimant­appellant a sum of Rs.11,64,300/­ minus the amount  already paid pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal 

stands modified to the extent above. The appeal filed by  the   claimant   is   allowed   with   the   above   observation   and  direction. No separate order as to costs.    ………..……………....…………………………..J.       (G.S. SINGHVI) ….......……………………………………………….J.            (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI, July 1,  2013. JUDGMENT 14 Page 14