J U D G M E N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

‘

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of 4,92,700/-

awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on

27.11.1999.

2. On the fateful day, while the First Respondent was returning to his jhuggi on his bicycle along with one Ramesh, his neighbour, a Tata truck No.HR-46-1917 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the Second Respondent came from behind and struck against his bicycle. The First Respondent fell down. Left wheel of the truck ran over the right hand/wrist leading to heavy bleeding. The First Respondent was removed to Adarsh Nursing Home, Sarai Peepal Thalla and was then treated in Hindu Rao Hospital. He was issued a Permanent Disability Certificate showing 40% disability because of deformity in his right hand and crushing of the fingers.

3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the First Respondent was working as a Rickshaw Pullar and held that the Appellant would be unable to carry his profession on account of permanent disability. Thus, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of a semi-skilled worker and awarded a compensation of ‘4,82,688/- on account of loss of future earnings. On adding a sum of ‘10,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, an overall compensation of ‘4,92,700/- was awarded.

4. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-

(i) Since the First Respondent was employed as a rickshaw puller, his income should have been taken as Minimum Wages of an unskilled worker instead of a semi-skilled worker.

(ii) Since there was permanent disability to the extent of 40%

only on account of the injuries on the right hand, the Claims Tribunal erred in taking this to be a case of 100%

disability.

5. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the First Respondent that on account of the crush injuries on the right hand and wrist, the First Respondent was totally incapacitated to carry out the work and thus there is no error or infirmity in taking the loss of earning capacity as 100%.

6. As far as the income of the First Respondent is concerned, the Claims Tribunal was justified in taking the Minimum Wages of a semi-skilled worker. While pulling a rickshaw one needs some skill. Otherwise also, it can be assumed that in the year 1999 a rickshaw puller would be earning at least ‘90/- per day and thus awarding compensation on the basis of Minimum Wages @ ‘2514/- per month cannot be said to be unreasonable.

7. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., 2011 (1) SCC 343, the Supreme Court brought out the difference between permanent disability and functional disability resulting into loss of earning capacity. It was held that the same injury may have different impact on persons as per their vocation. Paras 10, 13 and 14 of the report are extracted hereunder:-

“10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.

x x x x x x x x x x

13. Ascerta