The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method for calculating loss of income and the reliance on established case law for determining non-pecuniary compensation and the adjustment of insurance payouts.

J.R. Midha, J.

The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 8,79,513 has been awarded to claimant-respondent No. 1. The appellant seeks reduction of the award amount.

2. Claimant-respondent No. 1 has filed the cross-objections seeking enhancement of the award amount.

3. The accident dated 4.4.2003 resulted in amputation of right leg of respondent No. 1. The disability of the appellant was assessed to be 90 per cent, as per disability certificate, Exh. PW1/7.

4. Claimant-respondent No. 1 was 55 years at the time of the accident and was working as a driver with DTC drawing a salary of Rs. 10,735 per month. The learned Tribunal took the loss of income of respondent No. 1 to be five years' salary and Rs. 6,44,100 was awarded as salary for five years. Rs. 50,413 has been awarded for medical expenses, Rs. 10,000 for special diet and conveyance and Rs. 1,00,000 for non-pecuniary compensation. The total compensation awarded is Rs. 8,79,513.

5. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing of this appeal is that respondent No. 1 was aged 55 years at the time of the accident and was due to retire after one and a half months and, therefore, the loss of income should have been awarded only for a period of one and a half months instead of five years. The counsel for respondent No. 1, in reply, submits that the loss of income awarded by the learned Tribunal needs enhancement on the ground that the loss of income has to be calculated according to the multiplier method laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC).

6. Claimant-respondent No. 1 was aged 55 years at the time of the accident and the appropriate multiplier at the age of 55 years is 11. Taking the salary of claimant-respondent No. 1 to be Rs. 10,735 and applying the multiplier of 11, the loss of income is computed to be Rs. 14,17,020 (Rs. 10,735 x 12 x 11). As per the disability certificate, Exh. PW1/7, disability of respondent No. 1 has been assessed to be 90 per cent. However, loss of earning capacity is taken to be 50 per cent and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 is entitled to loss of income of Rs. 7,08,510 (Rs. 14,17,020 x 50 per cent).

7. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the non-pecuniary compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal be enhanced. The learned counsel refers to and relies upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vijay Kumar Mittal, 2008 ACJ 1300 (Del), where this court examined all the previous judgments with respect to the non-pecuniary compensation awarded in the cases of permanent disability and held that the courts have been awarding about Rs. 3,00,000 under the heads of non-pecuniary damages for amputation of leg with permanent disability of 50 per cent and above. The findings of this court are reproduced hereunder--

(17) From the aforenoted judicial decisions, a trend which emerges is that between the years 1985 and 1990, the courts have been awarding about Rs. 3,00,000 under the head non-pecuniary damages, towards amputation of leg resulting in permanent disability of 50 per cent and above.

8. Following the aforesaid judgment, the non-pecuniary compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000 under the following heads:      

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Rs. 1,00,000 received by the appellant from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. under the Group Personal Accident Policy be adjusted. The original Group Personal Accident Policy has been produce