Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 40104
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J
SHRI. BHIMANAGOUDA S/O BASANGOUDA PATIL – Appellant
Versus
SHRI. CHAMBANNA V.. TULAJI – Respondent
MFA 101202 of 2018
The assessment of disability and loss of earning capacity must reflect the claimant's actual functional limitations and the nature of their work, leading to a recalculated compensation of Rs.16,49,512.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 8 and 9 - Compensation for injury - Appeal for enhancement of compensation for amputation of right leg - Tribunal's assessment of disability at 40% was found to be erroneous - Court reassessed functional disability at 90% based on the nature of work and loss of earning capacity - Compensation modified to Rs.16,49,512/- with interest at 6% per annum. (Paras 6, 11, 14, 15)
(B) Assessment of Disability - The court emphasized that the nature of work performed by the injured must be considered when assessing permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. (Paras 7, 10, 11)
(C) Loss of Future Prospects - The court granted compensation under the head of loss of future prospects at 40%, given the young age of the claimant and the significant impact of the disability on his earning capacity. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sustained severe injuries, including the amputation of his right leg, in a road accident on 20.02.2008, leading to a claim for compensation. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.9,86,182/-, which the appellant contended was inadequate.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's assessment of the appellant's disability was significantly undervalued and recalculated the total compensation to Rs.16,49,512/- based on a reassessment of income and disability.
Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the correct assessment of disability and future loss of earnings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the assessment of disability must reflect the claimant's actual loss of earning capacity and that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment.
Result: Appeal stands allowed in part.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 25.10.2016 passed in MVC No.3022/2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and additional MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’).
2. Heard Sri.Naveen.R.Melinamani learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and Sri.R.R.Mane learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in assessing the income and disability of the injured/claimant. It is submitted that the appellant is also entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future prospects, in view of the amputation of right leg above the knee. He submits that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on the other heads is also on the lower side and is required to reassess the same by allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has justified in assessing the disability of the injured/appellant at 40% and the award of compensation by the Tribunal on the other heads is just and proper does not call for any enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the same.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant was met with a road accident dated 20.02.2008 and sustained the following injuries:
i) Cut lacerated wound on right thigh exposed fracture of femur bone.
ii) Cut lacerated wound on right leg muscle exposed suspected fracture tibia and fracture bone.
iii)Amputation of right leg.
In order to prove the claim, the appellant entered the witness box and also examined Dr.A.B.Patil as PW3 and produced number of documents with regard to the disability and the income. Admittedly, the appellant has not examined the author of Ex.P9–Salary Certificate to prove his income. Hence, this Court reassess the income of the appellant at Rs.4,250/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Insofar as the assessment of disability is concerned, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability of the appellant at 40%. The evidence of PW3 and the other medical records available before this Court would clearly indicate that the right leg of the appellant is amputated above the knee. Hence, the disability is required to be reassessed.
7. It would be useful to refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SARNAM SINGH Vs. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS ,
“9. As to how compensation, in case where permanent disability of an injured affects his functional disability, is to be assessed has been considered by this Court, repeatedly. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar Tomar And Others . In the aforesaid case the injured was working as a cart puller. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do some other work while sitting. The High Court did not disturb the finding regarding loss of income on account of disability. This Court found that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss of earning at 50% as the injured was 55 years of age and it may be difficult for him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability. The same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as f
