Summary
In a motor accident claim by a 38-year-old carpenter whose right leg was amputated, the Supreme Court held that carpentry is skilled work and assessed notional income at Rs. 9,000 per month. It took functional disability at 100%, against the 70% medical figure, because he could no longer sit or stand unaided to do his work, and awarded Rs. 10,00,000 for a prosthetic leg and its upkeep over his life. Compensation was enhanced from Rs. 11,51,423 to Rs. 35,95,923 with 6% interest.
Issues
- Whether the notional income of the injured carpenter was correctly assessed at Rs. 5,000 per month.
- Whether functional disability should be assessed at 100% rather than the 70% permanent disability certified medically.
- What multiplier applies to a 38-year-old claimant.
- Whether compensation is payable for the cost and maintenance of a prosthetic limb and under other heads omitted or under-assessed by the High Court.
Held
- A carpenter is an artisan and a skilled worker, and that must be taken into account when assessing notional income. On unrefuted evidence of earnings of Rs. 8,000 to 10,000 per month in 2004, and taking guidance from Chameli Devi and Jagdish, the income was assessed at Rs. 9,000 per month, with 40% added for future prospects under Pranay Sethi. (¶¶ 5.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.3, 5.3.2, 6)
- Under Sarla Verma, the multiplier for a claimant aged 38 is 15, and the High Court rightly applied it. (¶¶ 5.4, 5.4.1)
- Loss of earning capacity is the decisive test for compensation for permanent disability. The percentage of medical disability is not to be mechanically treated as the percentage of economic loss, and the claimant's socio-economic circumstances may be considered. (¶¶ 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 5.5.4)
- Medically certified disability is distinct from functional disability, which is the effect of the injury on the person's daily life and occupation and depends on age, the nature of the work and its effect on earning capacity. Following S. Ettiappan and R. Halle, a carpenter who after amputation cannot sit squatting or cross-legged, cannot stand without support and cannot work without an attendant suffers total functional disability, assessed at 100% rather than the medical 70%. (¶¶ 5.6, 5.6.1, 5.6.2, 5.6.3, 5.6.4, 5.7, 5.7.4, 5.7.6)
- Compensation aims to restore the injured, as far as possible, to their position before the accident, and covers both pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads (Mohd. Sabeer, Anant, R.D. Hattangadi). A prosthetic limb needs periodic replacement and half-yearly maintenance, so the claimant, expected to need about six replacements over his remaining life, was awarded Rs. 10,00,000 for the cost and upkeep of an artificial leg. (¶¶ 5.8, 5.8.1, 5.9, 5.9.2, 5.9.3, 7)
- Loss of future earnings was computed at Rs. 22,68,000 at 100% disability. Further amounts were awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, income lost during hospitalisation, attendant charges, nutrition, medical expenses and transportation, giving total just compensation of Rs. 35,95,923 with 6% interest from the claim petition. (¶¶ 6, 7, 7.1, 8)
Result
Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced from Rs. 11,51,423 to Rs. 35,95,923 with 6% interest from the date of the claim petition; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to deposit the balance of Rs. 24,44,500 with interest before the Claims Tribunal within six weeks, for transfer to the claimant's bank account after verification.