Summary
A 37-year-old scrap dealer lost his right leg below the knee when the bus he was travelling in hit a parked tempo in 2009. The Delhi High Court assessed his functional disability at 35% and refused future prospects, reasoning that his income tax returns showed his income had risen after the accident. The Supreme Court held that both returns predated the accident. In any case, a later rise in income would not defeat future prospects. A self-employed man who must move about and cannot drive suffers far more loss of earning capacity, which it fixed at 60%. It added 40% future prospects and provided for three prosthetic limbs and their upkeep to age 70. It enhanced the non-pecuniary heads and raised the award to Rs 38,70,120 with 9% interest.
Issues
- Whether loss of earning capacity of a self-employed claimant with a below-knee amputation and 70% permanent disability was rightly assessed at 35%.
- Whether future prospects could be refused on the ground that the claimant's income had increased after the accident.
- What compensation is just for prosthetic limbs and for non-pecuniary loss.
Provisions considered
- Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Just compensation for permanent disablement covers loss of future earning capacity assessed by the disability's effect on earnings (Raj Kumar, Sandeep Khanuja), future prospects (Pranay Sethi), and pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads (R.D. Hattangadi), so as to restore the claimant as far as possible. (¶¶ 14, 15, 18, 21, 25)
Held
- The percentage of permanent disability is not mechanically the percentage of lost earning capacity; the question is its effect on earnings. A self-employed businessman who must move about to augment his income and can no longer drive is severely affected, and his loss of future earning capacity is assessed at 60%, not 35%. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- A permanently disabled claimant is entitled to future prospects as well as future loss of income. The High Court's premise was wrong because both income tax returns related to periods before the accident of 12.06.2009, and even a post-accident rise in income, which may have many causes, would not bar future prospects; 40% is added under Pranay Sethi. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- The award for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance would last only about 15 years; a 37-year-old must be able to buy three limbs and maintain them till at least 70, so Rs 7,80,000 for limbs and Rs 5,00,000 for maintenance are awarded. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- The non-pecuniary award of Rs 3,00,000 was inadequate; Rs 2,00,000 each is awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disability and disfigurement. Courts should view permanent-disability claims in totality, mindful of the claimant's socio-economic background, and award compensation liberally. (¶¶ 24, 26, 27, 28)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 11.09.2018 in MAC. APP. No. 444 of 2013 and the order dated 12.10.2018 in Review Petition No. 391 of 2018 modified, and compensation enhanced to Rs 38,70,120 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim application.