Summary
The Court enhanced compensation for a young typist whose right arm was amputated, holding that future prospects are available in permanent-injury claims as well as death cases. Functional earning loss required assessment against the victim’s vocation rather than mechanically halving limb disability. On the evidence, the Court fixed monthly income at ten thousand rupees, added forty per cent for future prospects and assessed earning impairment at sixty-five per cent, retaining the other compensation heads.
Issues
- Whether future prospects could be included in a permanent-disablement claim.
- How loss of earning capacity should be assessed against limb disability and occupation.
- What income and resulting compensation the evidence supported.
Held
- Serious permanent-injury claimants may receive an addition for future prospects when calculating future earning loss. Restricting that benefit to death cases misread the precedents and denied recognition of a surviving victim’s prospective progress. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The relevant inquiry concerns the injury’s impact on earning capacity in the particular profession, vocation or business. A medical percentage for one limb cannot be mechanically converted into a whole-body percentage or blindly applied as economic loss. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Both hands were important to the claimant’s typing work. Halving the eighty-nine per cent limb disability to forty-five per cent was unjustified; considering his remaining arm, youth and possibilities of rehabilitation, the Court assessed earning impairment at sixty-five per cent on these facts. (¶ 20)
- Informal-sector income evidence was unduly discounted merely for want of tax returns. Considering the evidence and contemporary skilled minimum wages, monthly income was fixed at ten thousand, increased to fourteen thousand with forty per cent future prospects. Applying multiplier eighteen and sixty-five per cent loss yielded Rs.19,65,600. (¶ 21)
- Just compensation must reflect physical limitations, emotional trauma, impaired autonomy and dignity. The High Court’s amounts under the other compensation heads required no interference. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Rs.19,65,600 substituted for Rs.7,77,600 under loss of earning capacity and future prospects; other compensation heads retained. No order as to costs.