A.K Ganguly, J.— Leave granted.
2. On 1-11-2006, at about 7.15 p.m, the appellant was proceeding on a motorcycle (No. KA 04 X 4576) as a pillion rider on T.C Palya Miand Road, near Raghawendranagar, when a lorry (No. KA 22 A 6772) came from behind at a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle. The left wheel of the lorry ran over the right leg of the appellant, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. The right leg of the appellant had to be amputated as a result of the accident.
3. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs 15 lakhs as compensation. At the time of the accident, the appellant was aged 20 years and claimed to be earning Rs 6000 per month as salary as a building centring worker.
4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) held that in motor accidents cases, strict proof of rashness and negligence need not be established as was required in criminal cases, and accordingly concluded that it was clearly established that the appellant sustained injuries as a result of the accident. The appellant had sustained fracture to both bones of lower 1/3 tibia and fibula, and the right leg below knee was amputated. Thus, MACT awarded Rs 50,000 for pain and suffering.
5. Due to the accident, the appellant was treated as both an in-patient and out-patient, and considering the nature of injuries, MACT awarded Rs 15,000 under the head of loss of income during treatment period. MACT also awarded Rs 5000 for medical expenses to the appellant even though no medical bills or prescriptions were produced. MACT assessed disability of the whole body at 20%, and took monthly salary to be Rs 3500 and hence assessed loss of future income at Rs 1,51,200 (Rs 3500 × 12 × 18 × 20/100). MACT also awarded Rs 10,000 towards loss of marriage prospects and Rs 10,000 towards frustration, unhappiness and discomfort, Rs 10,000 towards transport and conveyance and Rs 15,000 towards loss of amenities of life, Rs 5000 towards attendant charges and Rs 10,000 towards food and nourishment.
6. Accordingly, total compensation payable to the appellant amounted to Rs 2,81,200 with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a It was payable jointly and severally by the owner and the Insurance Company respectively. However, in view of the insurance policy only the Insurance Company was liable to pay the entire compensation.
7. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the compensation awarded by MACT as follows: Rs 50,000 for pain and suffering, Rs 15,000 for loss of income during period of treatment, Rs 5000 for medical expenses, Rs 3,78,000 (Rs 3500 × 12 × 18 × 50%) for loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings, Rs 75,000 for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, including loss of marital prospects, Rs 10,000 for conveyance charges, Rs 5000 towards attendant charges and Rs 10,000 towards food and nourishment. Thus, total compensation was enhanced to Rs 5,48,000 with 6% interest p.a payable from the date of the claim petition till realisation.
8. Being still aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal for further enhancement of compensation. Having gone through the material on record and after hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that the compensation amount deserves to be enhanced.
9. We note that before MACT, the appellant contended that he was earning a monthly salary of Rs 6000 as a building centring worker. He produced a salary certificate to that effect. Further, his employer also stated that the appellant was working under him as a building centring worker for the last two years and was drawing a salary of Rs 6000 per month. The appellant was also getting boarding and lodging in the house of his employer. However, from the cross-examination of his employer, it does not appear that the appellant was earning Rs 6000 per month. We accept that the monthly income of the appellant cannot exceed Rs 4000.
10. The High Court arrived at a disability of 50% by looking into Schedule I to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, where percentage of loss of earning capacity due to amputation below knee with stump exceeding 12.70 cm was determined at 50%. In the present case, the doctor had assessed permanent residual physical disability of about 70% of right lower limb, which is about 35% of the whole body.
11. It is clear that the appellant is a manual labourer and loss of his leg below the knee will drastically affect his ability to perform building centring work, or even any other manual labour. Hence, we sustain the disability assessment by the High Court. As the appellant is aged 20 years, a multiplier of 18 has been correctly selected. Accordingly, compensation for loss of future earnings amounts to Rs 4,32,000 (Rs 4000 × 12 × 18 × 50%).
12. The appellant is aged just 20 years and one of his legs has been amputated below the knee. It will not only severely affect his future prospects of earning, but he will also have to be permanently disabled for life and suffer the necessary discomforts accompanying living without a leg. It greatly minimises his chances of getting married. In light of all this, we enhance the amount awarded for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, including loss of marital prospects, to Rs 3,00,000. We also enhance the amount awarded for medical expenses for his whole life to Rs 1,00,000, conveyance charges to Rs 50,000 and for food and nourishment to Rs 50,000 considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant. The compensation awarded by the High Court under the other heads is sustained.
13. Accordingly, the break-up of compensation is as follows:
Pain and suffering
Rs 50,000
Loss of income during treatment
Rs 15,000
Medical expenses for whole life
Rs 1,00,000
Loss of future earnings
Rs 4,32,000
Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life including loss of marital prospects
Rs 3,00,000
Conveyance charges
Rs 50,000
Food and nourishment
Rs 50,000
Total
Rs 9,97,000
Accordingly, compensation is enhanced to Rs 9,97,000, which we round off to Rs 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs). Interest shall be payable on the enhanced amount at 9% p.a
14. It appears that by an order of this Court dated 30-3-2011, the name of the driver of the offending vehicle was deleted from the array of parties. Thus, compensation shall be paid to the appellant jointly and severally by the respondents.
15. The appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.