P&H HC Raises Injured Labourer’s Crash Compensation To Rs 4.94 Lakh, Treating His 30% Disability As Loss Of Earning Capacity

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the appellant’s loss of earning capacity should be revised by reassessing functional disability, income, future prospects and multiplier.

The court held

The Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation from ₹3,50,903 to ₹4,94,358, an increase of ₹1,43,455.

It also directed

It awarded interest on the enhanced amount at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation; the respondents’ liability remained as specified in the Tribunal’s award.

01Facts

The appellant sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 19 April 2000.

¶ 1–4

The Tribunal had awarded ₹3,50,903, including compensation based on 10% functional disability.

¶ 1–4

No respondent challenged the finding on negligence; the appeal concerned quantum alone.

¶ 1–4

Medical evidence established a compound fracture of the right thigh, other lacerations, and 30% permanent disability involving restricted knee movement, shortening and ligament injury.

¶ 6–8

The appellant had undergone substantial hospitalisation and treatment.

¶ 6–8

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the appellant’s loss of earning capacity should be revised by reassessing functional disability, income, future prospects and multiplier.

¶ 4, 8–9

ii.Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation for loss of income during treatment, pain and suffering, medical and related expenses, and loss of future amenities.

¶ 4, 10

03Law Applied

In assessing compensation for permanent disability, the court must determine functional disability by considering both the extent of physical disability and its effect on the injured person’s earning capacity in light of the work performed before the accident.

¶ 8

Where reliable evidence of income is absent, the court may assess income by reference to the applicable minimum wage; future prospects are added in accordance with National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, and the multiplier is selected by reference to age under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121.

¶ 9

04Reasoning

The court found that the appellant’s injuries and permanent disability substantially compromised his earning capacity.

¶ 8–9, 11

Although he did not prove his claimed income or occupation as a tailor and dairy farmer, the evidence established labour work, and the court treated him as a skilled worker for minimum-wage purposes.

¶ 8–9, 11

It therefore assessed monthly income at ₹1,942, applied 30% functional disability, added 40% future prospects and used a multiplier of 15, producing ₹1,46,880 for loss of earning capacity.

¶ 8–9, 11

Given the period of hospitalisation and nature of the injuries, it assessed nine months’ loss of income during treatment at ₹17,478.

¶ 10–11

It also awarded ₹1,80,000 for medical and related expenses, transportation, special diet and attendant charges; ₹75,000 for pain and suffering; and ₹75,000 for loss of future prospects and amenities.

¶ 10–11