Insurance Company-Accident – Amputation of leg below knee – Rs. One lakh awarded for loss of social status and shortening of expectancy of life.

Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, J:- The present appeal has been filed against award dated 27.05.2013 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

2. On 26.04.2011, Lakha Ram, aged 35 years, was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-35D-2994. The said motorcycle was struck by a rashly and negligently driven Bolero bearing registration No.HR35C-7981 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’). FIR No.96 dated 25.05.2011 was registered at Police Station Nangal Chaudhary.

3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) was filed.

4. The Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,78,100/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The amount awarded included Rs.1,40,000/- for permanent disability.

The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not applying the multiplier method for awarding compensation for disability. He contends that the amounts awarded under the various heads are on the lower side.

6. Learned counsel for the insurer contended that the claimant failed to prove that he was an agriculturist and nothing has come on record that how the disability effected his functional ability.

7. The fact that the left leg below knee of the appellant was amputated has not been disputed. The disability certificate Ex.PW5/A was duly proved by the deposition of Dr. R.P.Saini. The appellant remained hospitalized for one month. He was operated twice. Assuming that it was not proved that he was an agriculturalist, even then without a lower limb his functional ability is bound to be affected.

The Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, [2011(1) Law Herald (SC) 644] : 2011 (1) SCC 343 has held as under :-

“18. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the permanent disability of the injured-claimant was 45% and the loss of his future earning capacity was also 45%. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the disability certificate referred to 45% disability with reference to left lower limb and not in regard to the entire body. The said extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be the functional disability of the body nor could it be assumed to result in a corresponding extent of loss of earning capacity, as the disability would not have prevented him from carrying on his avocation as a cheese vendor, though it might impede in his smooth functioning. Normally, the absence of clear and sufficient evidence would have necessitated remand of the case for further evidence on this aspect. However, instead of remanding the matter for a finding on this issue, at this distance of time after nearly two decades, on the facts and circumstances, to do complete justice, we propose to assess the permanent functional disability of the body as 25% and the loss of future earning capacity as 20%.”

8. It has been held that every effort should be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment but also for loss of earning and inability to lead normal life. It was further held that percentage of permanent disability qua the limb should not be adopted as it is as multiplier for calculating the compensation.

9. There is nothing on record to prove the functional disability. Learned counsel for the appellant states that there has already been a long drawn litigation and the matter should not be remitted back. In such circumstances, in consonance with the decision of Supreme Court in Raj Kumar’s case (supra), the compensation for permanent disability would be awarded taking 70% disability qua limb as 35% permanent disability qua whole body. The minimum wages prevalent in the State of Haryana at the time of accident fo