Parminder Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1 The MACT has computed the compensation payable to the Appellant on the basis of a notional income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. on the ground that no evidence of his income was produced. The Appellant has however, produced an Affidavit by his employer in Supreme Court. As per the said Affidavit, the Appellant was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. at the time of the accident. On the basis of the Affidavit filed by the employer of the Appellant, it is accepted that the income of the Appellant was Rs.10,000/p.m. at the time of the accident, for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to him. Taking the income of the Appellant as Rs. 10,000/- p.m., with Future Prospects @50% as awarded by the High Court, the total income of the Appellant would come to Rs. 15,000/- p.m. The Appellant was 23 years old at the time when the accident occurred. Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of future earnings suffered by the Appellant would work out to Rs. 15,000 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 32,40,000/-. The High Court has rightly assessed the functional disability of the Appellant as 100%. The Appellant is suffering from hemiplegia due to which the left side of his body is barely functioning. On account of the permanent disability suffered, the Appellant was deprived of getting married and having a normal family life. His capacity to earn a living has been completely shattered for the rest of his life, and he has a become fully dependant person. [Paras 5, 5.1-5.5] [993-B-G]

1.2 In the present case, it is an admitted position that it is not possible for the Appellant to get employed as a driver, or do any kind of manual labour, or engage in any agricultural operations whatsoever, for his sustenance. In such circumstances, the High Court has rightly assessed the Appellant’s functional disability at 100% insofar as his loss of earning capacity is concerned. The Appellant is, therefore, awarded Rs. 32,40,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. The compensation awarded to the Appellant towards his medical expenses is highly insufficient. The Appellant has undergone 5 surgeries, including a surgery for a severe head injury, and 3 throat surgeries. The Appellant has not been awarded any amount whatsoever either by the MACT, or the High Court for the successive hospitalizations, surgeries and medical treatment. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and fair to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- towards hospitalization and medical expenses incurred in the past by the Appellant. The Appellant was produced before the Court. He was in an extremely pitiable state. On account of the removal of the frontal bone of the skull, half of his head has caved in. Furthermore, a deep circular incision was made in his throat, and his body was in an unstable condition, undergoing tremors. The Appellant is further suffering from hemiplegia, due to which the left side of his body is not functioning properly. Given the debilitated state of the Appellant, no amount of money can compensate him. He has been in this condition since the age of 22 years when the accident took place, and will remain like this throughout his life. The Appellant has also been deprived of having a normal married life with a family, and would require medical assistance from time to time. Being completely dependant, he would require the help of an attendant throughout his life. In view of these uncontroverted facts, a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is awarded to the Appellant towards medical expenses and attendant charges. [Paras 5.6-5.9] [996-D-H; 997-A-D]

1.3 The Appellant is entitled to the following amounts: (i) Rs. 32,40,000/- to be awarded towards loss of future earnings by taking the income of the Appellant at Rs.10,000/- p.m., and granting Future Prospects @50%; (ii) Rs. 7,50,000/- to be awarded towards repeated hospitalizations and medical expenses for undergoing 5 surgeries and medical treatment;

(iii) Rs. 10,00,000/- to be awarded towards future medical expenses and attendant charges; (iv) Interest @ 9% awarded by the High Court from the date of the Claim Petition, till the date of recovery to be maintained. On the issue of liability to pay the compensation awarded, the view taken by the High Court that the Respondent–Insurance Company is absolved of the liability to bear the compensation, as evidence has been produced from the office of the Regional Transport Office to prove that the drivers of the two offending trucks were driving on the basis of invalid driving licenses, is affirmed. The owners and drivers of the offending trucks have not appeared at any stage of the proceedings, including this Court. The Respondent – Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks. [Paras 6, 7] [997-E-H; 998-A-E]

Govind Yadav v. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 ; K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : [2012]

11 SCR 414 ; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Ors., (2011)

1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179 ; Shamanna & Ors. v. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2018 (9) SCC 650 [2018] 9 SCR 486

– relied on.