Page 3

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

15 lakhs from the respondents. Respondent No.1  

is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer  

of the offending vehicle. The appellant examined  

two  witnesses  in  support  of  his  claim  and  

documents were taken on record as evidence. PW-1  

Sushil  Kumar,  the  record  clerk  who  filed  

treatment record and MLC as Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-

1/B  respectively,  and,  PW-2  Sanjay  Kumar,  the  

appellant  himself,  and  he  filed  his  treatment  

record and bills as Exs.PW-2/1 to PW-2/19, his  

permanent  disability  certificate  Ex.PW-2/20  and  

concession  certificate  Ex.PW-2/21.  The  

respondents did not lead any evidence.

 4. The Tribunal held that the accident took place  

due  to  the  rash  and  negligent  driving  of  the  

offending  vehicle  as  a  result  of  which  the  

appellant  sustained  injuries  and  awarded  

pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The  

compensation was calculated by assigning minimum  

wages  at  3166/-  per  month,  of  which  loss  of  

earning  capacity  was  calculated  at  70%  which  

comes to 2216/- per month, i.e.  26,592/- per  

3

Page 4

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

annum. Multiplier of 16 was taken. A lump sum  

compensation  of  8000/-  was  given  to  the  

appellant under the head of ‘medical expenses’.  

Hence, the total pecuniary compensation given was  

4,33,472/-. A sum of 50,000/- was given as non-

pecuniary damages on account of mental pain and  

agony  and  loss  of  future  enjoyment  of  life  

suffered by him. Thus, a total compensation of  

4,83,472/-  was  awarded  to  the  appellant  with  

interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing  

of  the  petition  till  the  date  of  realization.  

Both the respondents were held to be jointly and  

severally  liable  to  pay  the  compensation  but  

respondent  No.2  being  the  insurer  was  held  to  

have the primary obligation to pay compensation  

on  behalf  of  the  insured  and  was  directed  to  

deposit the award amount within one month from  

the date of the order.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal,  the  appellant  filed  an  appeal  in  the  High  Court  

asking for enhancement of the compensation on the  

ground that the Tribunal ought to have awarded  

4

Page 5

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

enhanced compensation on the basis of evidence  

adduced. The contentions of the appellant will be  

taken up in detail at a later stage. The High  

Court enhanced the compensation to 6,35,808/- by  

awarding   5,42,808/-  under  the  head  ‘loss  of  

future earning capacity’ by taking a multiplier  

of 18. Further,  25,000/- as conveyance charges  

and  10,000/-  as  Attendant  charges  were  also  

awarded. The compensation of   50,000/- awarded  

under  the  head  ‘Mental  pain  and  agony’  and  

8,000/-  for  medical  bills  as  awarded  by  the  

Tribunal was maintained as it is. Therefore, the  

High Court awarded a sum of 1,52,336/- over and  

above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at  

the same rate of interest i.e. 7% per annum and  

the  respondent  No.2  was  directed  to  pay  this  

enhanced amount with interest in favour of the  

appellant  within  four  weeks  from  the  date  of  

receipt of copy of the order.

6. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded  

by the High Court, the appellant has appealed to  

this Court, urging various legal contentions in  

5

Page 6

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

support  of  further  enhancement  of  the  

compensation.  

7. The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  

argued  that  the  appellant  was  employed  as  an  

embroiderer and that it is a skilled job and he  

used to earn  4500/- per month. Further, he is  

entitled to compensation against loss of future  

prospects  in  income  and  that  the  compensation  

under the head of ‘pain and suffering’ should not  

be less than 2 lacs as the permanent disability  

is 70% and that his marriage prospects have been  

greatly diminished because of the accident and he  

should be awarded compensation under the head,  

‘loss of marriage prospects’ as well. It was also  

contended that the High Court was not justified  

in  not  awarding  compensation  for  the  loss  of  

earning  for  at  least  3  months  during  the  

appellant’s  treatment  period.  Further,  on  the  

point of interest, it was contended that the High  

Court should have enhanced the rate of interest  

from 7% to 9% per annum.

6

Page 7

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

8. We  have  heard  the  rival  legal  contentions  

advanced  on  behalf  of  the  parties.  In  our  

considered view, the appellant is entitled to be  

awarded  compensation  based  on  the  wages  for  a  

skilled worker, as he is an embroiderer and the  

same cannot be considered as an unskilled work.  

The minimum wages in Delhi for a skilled worker  

as on 01.08.2005 was  3589.90/- per month. The  

appellant  has  claimed  that  he  was  earning  

4,500/-  per  month  from  his  work  as  an  

embroiderer. We will accept his claim as it is  

not  practical  to  expect  a  worker  in  the  

unorganized  sector  to  provide  documentary  

evidence of his monthly income as per decision of  

this  Court  in  the  case  of  Ramachandrappa  v.  

Manager,  Royal  Sundaram  Alliance  Insurance  

Company Limited 1, wherein it was held as under:-

“13. In the instant case, it is not  in  dispute  that  the  appellant  was  aged about 35 years and was working  as  a  coolie  and  was  earning  Rs.  4500/- per month at the time of the  accident.  This  claim  is  reduced  by  the Tribunal to a sum of Rs. 3000/-  only on the assumption that the wages  

1 (2011) 13 SCC 236

7

Page 8

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

of  a  labourer  during  the  relevant  period viz. in the year 2004, was Rs.  100/- per day. This assumption in our  view  has  no  basis.  Before  the  Tribunal,  though  the  Insurance  Company was served, it did not choose  to appear before the court nor did it  repudiate the claim of the claimant.  Therefore,  there  was  no  reason  for  the  Tribunal  to  have  reduced  the  claim of the claimant and determined  the monthly earning to be a sum of Rs  3000/-  per  month.  Secondly,  the  appellant was working as a coolie and  therefore,  we  cannot  expect  him  to  produce  any  documentary  evidence  to  substantiate  his  claim.  In  the  absence  of  any  other  evidence  contrary  to  the  claim  made  by  the  claimant, in our view, in the facts  of  the  present  case,  the  Tribunal  should have accepted the claim of the  claimant.

14. We  hasten  to  add  that  in  all  cases and in all circumstances, the  Tribunal need not accept the claim of  the  claimant  in  the  absence  of  supporting  material.  It  depends  on  the facts of each case. In a given  case,  if  the  claim  made  is  so  exorbitant or if the claim made is  contrary  to  ground  realities,  the  Tribunal may not accept the claim and  may proceed to determine the possible  income  by  resorting  to  some  guesswork,  which  may  include  the  ground  realities  prevailing  at  the  relevant point of time.

15. In  the  present  case,  the  appellant was working as a coolie and  in  and  around  the  date  of  the  accident, the wage of a labourer was  

8

Page 9

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

between            Rs. 100/- to Rs  150/-  per  day  or  Rs.  4500/-  per  month.  In  our  view,  the  claim  was  honest and bona fide and, therefore,  there was no reason for the Tribunal  to have reduced the monthly earning  of  the  appellant  from  Rs. 4500/- to Rs. 3000/- per month.  We,  therefore,  accept  his  statement  that  his  monthly  earning  was  Rs.  4500/-.”

Thus, in the present case, a monthly income of  

4,500/- as claimed by the appellant for his work  

as  an  embroiderer  is  reflective  of  ground  

realities and is not exorbitant by any standard  

and in the interest of justice, we should accept  

his  claim.  Further,  he  was  also  not  cross-

examined on the aspect of the nature of his work  

as an embroiderer and both the Tribunal and the  

High  Court  have  erred  in  holding  that  the  

appellant’s work was of an unskilled nature.

9. ‘Loss of future prospects’ should be added to  

this  amount  as  it  cannot  be  accepted  that  an  

embroiderer will not have a future increment in  

income. As per the  case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v.  

Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.2, keeping in  2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

9

Page 10

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

mind  the  young  age  of  the  appellant,  he  is  

entitled to 50% of his income as future increase  

in income ( 4,500/- + 2250/- = 6750/-).  We will  apply a multiplier of 18 as taken by the High  

Court in the impugned judgment and as per Sarla  

Verma’s case (supra). The appellant’s permanent  

disability  and  loss  of  earning  capacity  was  

assessed at 70% and we will not interfere with  

that. Hence, the total amount of compensation due  

to  loss  of  earning  capacity  along  with  future  

prospects  in  income  will  come  to    

10,20,600/-[ 6,750 x 70/100 x 12 x 18].

10. Further, in the case of  Raj Kumar  v. Ajay  

Kumar  &  Anr.3,  this  Court  has  succinctly  

explained the guidelines and heads for awarding  

compensation  in  cases  of  disability  due  to  a  

motor  accident.  The  relevant  paragraphs  are  

extracted below:

“6. The heads under which compensation  is  awarded  in  personal  injury  cases  are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

3 (2011) 1 SCC 343

1 0

Page 11

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

(i)  Expenses  relating  to  treatment,  hospitalisation,  medicines,  transportation,  nourishing  food,  and  miscellaneous expenditure. (ii)  Loss  of  earnings  (and  other  gains)  which  the  injured  would  have  made  had  he  not  been  injured,  comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the  period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on  account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General  damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and  trauma  as  a  consequence  of  the  injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of  prospects of marriage). (vi)  Loss  of  expectation  of  life  (shortening of normal longevity). In  routine  personal  injury  cases,  compensation  will  be  awarded  only  under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It  is only in serious cases of injury,  where  there  is  specific  medical  evidence corroborating the evidence of  the  claimant,  that  compensation  will  be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to  loss of future earnings on account of  permanent  disability,  future  medical  expenses,  loss  of  amenities  (and/or  loss  of  prospects  of  marriage)  and  loss of expectation of life.

7. Assessment  of  pecuniary  damages  under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a)  

1 1

Page 12

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

do not pose much difficulty as they  involve  reimbursement  of  actuals  and  are  easily  ascertainable  from  the  evidence.  Award  under  the  head  of  future  medical  expenses—Item  (iii)— depends upon specific medical evidence  regarding  need  for  further  treatment  and cost thereof. Assessment of non- pecuniary damages—Items (iv), (v) and  (vi)—involves  determination  of  lump  sum  amounts  with  reference  to  circumstances such as age, nature of  injury/deprivation/disability suffered  by the claimant and the effect thereof  on the future life of the claimant.  Decisions of this Court and the High  Courts  contain  necessary  guidelines  for  award  under  these  heads,  if  necessary.  What  usually  poses  some  difficulty  is  the  assessment  of  the  loss of future earnings on account of  permanent disability—Item (ii)(a).”

11. The appellant has further contended that he  

should be awarded compensation for loss of income  

suffered  during  the  period  of  treatment  i.e.  

26.10.2005 to 10.12.2005. As the accident took  

place on 28.09.2005, this comes to a period of  

around 3 months. Keeping in view the principles  

espoused  in  the  aforesaid  judgment,  we  hereby  

award  an  amount  of  13,500/-  for  this  period  

( 4,500  x  3)  taking  the  monthly  income  of  

4,500/-, thus, bringing the total compensation  

1 2

Page 13

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

under  the  broad  head  of  loss  of  income  to  

10,34,100/-.

12. Now, we will assess the compensation awarded  

under the other heads. With respect to medical  

expenses,  attendant  charges  and  conveyance  

charges,  as  well  as  possible  future  medical  

costs, we will award a total sum of 75,000/- as  

he  has  suffered  permanent  disability  due  to  

amputation of his right leg. The appellant will  

need  assistance  in  order  to  travel  and  move  

around,  and  regular  check-ups  and  will  most  

likely use a crutch to walk, all of which will  

incur expenses. On the point of loss of marriage  

prospects,  we  feel  that  it  is  a  major  loss,  

keeping in mind the young age of the appellant  

and  the  High  Court  has  gravely  erred  in  not  

awarding  adequate  compensation  separately  under  

this head and instead clubbed it under ‘loss of  

future  enjoyment  of  life’  and  ‘pain  and  

suffering’.  We  thereby  award 75,000/-  towards  

loss of marriage prospects. Further, as per the  

case of Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co.  

1 3

Page 14

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

Ltd.4,  wherein the appellant suffered amputation  

of  the  leg,  this  Court  awarded  a  sum  of  

1,50,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’ caused  

due to amputation of the leg. Therefore, towards  

‘mental agony and pain and suffering’, we award a  

sum of 1,50,000/- as the appellant has suffered  

tremendously due to the accident in terms of the  

pain and suffering involved in the amputation.  

Loss of a limb causes a profusion of distress and  

the appellant has to deal with the same for the  

rest of his life. We feel it is justified to  

award the aforesaid amount under this head as he  

might have to deal with discrimination and stigma  

in society due to the fact that he is an amputee.  

13. Further, it is necessary to award an amount  

under the head of ‘loss of amenities’ also as the  

appellant  will  definitely  deal  with  loss  of  

future amenities as he has lost a leg due to the  

accident. The injury has permanently disabled the  

appellant, thereby reducing his enjoyment of life  

and the full pursuit of all the activities he  

4 (2011) 10 SCC 683

1 4

Page 15

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

engaged  in  prior  to  the  accident.  We  thereby  

award  a  sum  of  1,00,000/-  towards  ‘loss  of  

amenities’.  Along  with  the  compensation  under  

conventional  heads,  the  appellant  is  also  

entitled to costs of litigation as per the legal  

principle laid down in the case of  Dr. Balram  

Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors.5 Therefore, under  

this head, we find it just and proper to award  

25,000/- towards costs of litigation.

14. Thus, the total compensation, the appellant  

is entitled to is given hereunder:

Head of  compensation

Amount

Loss of income: Loss  of  earning  capacity  and  future  prospects  of income + Loss  of  earnings  during  period  of  treatment

  10,20,600/- +        13,500/- =  10,34,100/-

Medical expenses,  attendant and  conveyance costs  and future  medical costs

     75,000/-

5 (2013) 13 SCALE 1

1 5

Page 16

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

Loss  of  marriage  prospects

     75,000/-

Mental  agony,  pain  and  suffering

   1,50,000/-

Loss of amenities     1,00,000/- Cost  of  litigation

     25,000/-

Total  compensation:

  14,59,100/-

15. Further,  as  per  the  case  of  Municipal  

Corporation of Delhi  v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims  

Association & Ors.6, we find it just and proper  to increase the interest awarded from 7% to 9%  

per  annum.  Hence,  the  total  compensation  the  

appellant  is  entitled  to  is  14,59,100/-  along  

with 9% interest per annum from the date of the  

accident till the date of realization.  

16. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit  

50%  of  the  awarded  amount  with  proportionate  

interest  within  four  weeks  from  the  date  of  

receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting  

the  amount  if  already  paid,  in  any  of  the  

6 (2011) 14 SCC 481

1 6

Page 17

C.A.@SLP(C)No.21303 of 2013

Nationalized Bank of the choice of the appellant  

for a period of 3 years. During the said period,  

if  he  wants  to  withdraw  a  portion  or  entire  

deposited amount for his personal or any other  

expenses,  including  development  of  his  asset,  

then he is at liberty to file application before  

the  Tribunal   for  release  of  the  deposited  

amount, which may be considered by it and pass  

appropriate order in this regard.  

The  rest  of  50%  amount  awarded  with  

proportionate  interest  shall  be  paid  to  the  

appellant/claimant  by  way  of  a  demand  draft  

within  four  weeks.  The  Insurance  Company  is  

further  directed  to  submit  compliance  report  

before this court within six weeks.

17. The appeal is accordingly allowed.  No costs.  

………………………………………………………………………J.                      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

                                                ………………………………………………………………………J.

        [V. GOPALA GOWDA] New Delhi, January 24, 2014  

1 7