IMPORTANT POINTS
The injured was a coolie which is often the employment asserted, where there is no evidence to substantiate even an employment. The injured who suffered 51% disability has also been granted compensation for loss of future earnings. In the overall circumstances there is scope for only adding a marginal percentage of 10% for future prospects; since the assertion is of employment as a coolie.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant was travelling in an autorickshaw on 31.12.2010 when a car driven rashly and negligently by the 1st respondent hit against the autorickshaw. The appellant sustained serious injuries, resulting in amputation based on which disability was assessed at 51% by Exhibit C1 certificate issued by the Medical Board. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the amputation was made above knee, evidenced by Exhibit A9 certificate issued by the doctor in the Medical College Hospital. Negligence was found on the driver of the car and the car is covered by a valid Insurance policy. There is no allegation of violation of policy conditions. The appeal is only for enhancement of compensation.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that since amputation above knee has been made, the appellant should have been assessed with more disability than what has been certified. It is also contended that the income adopted by the Tribunal is very low, at Rs.3000/-. The learned Counsel would also submit that the appellant had suffered hospitalisation for 226 days and he should have been granted more amounts for extra nourishment as also for bystander expenses. Also a contention is raised that considering the fact of inpatient treatment for 226 days, extending to 7½ months, the loss of earning has to be computed for at least one year.

3. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the amputation occurred after three years. It is further contended that the Tribunal has fixed the notional income correctly and awarded amounts perfectly considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. In fact, even an amputation as per the Workmen Compensation Act would have enabled assessment of disability only at 50%. Since the Tribunal has adopted the disability assessed at as per Exhibit C1 certificate, there is no scope for any further enhancement.

5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the appellant, who asserted to be a coolie, at Rs.3000/-in the year 2010. A coolie was fixed with a notional income of Rs.4,500/-per month in the year 2004, in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized the principle that there would be incremental enhancement in the case of even self-employed individuals in the un-organized sector (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) and with respect to an unspecified job of a coolie considering the increase in cost of living and economic advancements over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie would be eligible for incremental addition of at least Rs.500/-in every subsequent year. In such circumstances, the appellant who is a coolie, is entitled to be fixed with a notional income of Rs.7500/-as on the year of accident, which is 2010. Considering the long hospitalization, there is scope for further enhancement, for extra nourishment and bystander expenses, which are granted as per the table below. The loss of earnings also ought to be granted for 10 months, since the appellant was hospitalized for more than seven months. In the context of awarding compensation for loss of earning, there is no question of further grant of compensation of loss of earning (partial), which is deleted.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged that since there was amputation above the knee, there should also be future prospects granted in awarding the compensation for loss of future earning capacity. The learned Counsel has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that in cases of serious disability there could be future prospects awarded. Syed Sadiq & Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.[(2014) 2 SCC 735] was a case in which a vegetable vendor and a lorry cleaner assessed with a disa