The main legal point established in this judgment is the application of principles from previous judgments to determine compensation for disability and future loss of earnings.

JUDGMENT :

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The learned counsel for the insurance company as well as the claimant are before this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in FAO No. 4219 of 2005.

3. The claimant met with an accident on 28.01.2004. His left leg below the knee was amputated. He was working as a Security Officer in Bennett & Coleman. He was aged 37 years at the time of the incident. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 6,87,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The High Court modified the compensation as follows :

(A) Pecuniary Compensation     

(B) Non-Pecuniary Compensation

4. Both the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and the claimant have referred to several Judgments extensively and have canvassed for their respective position for reduction and enhancement, as the case may be. However, we propose to refer only to two judgments since those two judgments have discussed the first principles on the method of calculation and more so, because the latter Judgment is the latest one which has taken into consideration the previous Judgments as well.

5. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Court has laid down the principle regarding assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability. The same issue was discussed in more detail in the case of a chartered accountant in the recent judgment in Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande & Anr. (2017) 2 SCALE 314. In the latter case, this Court has awarded compensation applying the multiplier for the permanent disability to the tune of 70% for the Chartered Accountant. In Raj Kumar's case (supra), this Court has discussed about the functional disability and has held that compensation would vary from case to case depending on how much the person has been affected as far as his earning capacity is concerned.

6. In the case before us, it is in evidence that there is 85% permanent disability as far as left leg is concerned. It is also in evidence that he had been working as a Security Officer in a reputed company and from the evidence of Deputy Chief Manager before the Tribunal, it has come out that “prior to accident Gajender was doing duty in our office established at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg and he was in active job and after his accident when he joined the duty he had been shifted to our office established at Dariya Ganj where he has to do lesser work i.e. sedentary duty in which no physical work is required. The future of employee Gajender has been sealed and he will not be able to get any promotion in future.”

7. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having regard to the fact that the claimant has, in fact, suffered a serious injury leading to amputation of the left leg below the knee and which has certainly caused a functional disability since