N OBALARANGA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was heard along with several other appeals on a common issue namely, the quantum of compensation towards the loss of future earning or loss of future earning capacity, on account of the permanent disability occasioned as a result of personal injuries suffered by a victim in a motor accident. As the computation of compensation under this particular head of claim continues to be strongly disputed in most cases it was felt necessary to seek the assistance of several Counsel at the Bar. This Court had the valuable assistance of the following Shri S. P. Shankar, Senior Advocate appearing for Shri Shripad V. Shastri for the appellant, herein, Shri r. Rajagopalan, Shri A. N. Krishna Swamy, Shri O. Mahesh, Shri R. Ravishankar, Shri K. K. Vasanth, Smt. Harini Shivanand, Shri B. S. Umesh, Shri. K. Suryanarayana Rao, Shri A. Ravishankar, Shri A. M. Venkatesh, Shri R. Jayaprakash, Shri Arun Ponnappa and Shri Shrishaila, representing either the appellant or the respondents in the several appeals where the issue has arisen for consideration. However, in order to avoid prolixity, separate judgments are rendered in each of their cases.

(2.) THE brief facts in the above appeal are as follows: the appellant was the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal. He was working as a driver and was aged about 45, at the time of accident and claimed to be earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month. On 6. 11. 2000, while he was riding a two-wheeler, it was hit by a car as a result of which, the appellant had sustained a fracture of the right humerus and the right ulna, apart from other injuries. He was admitted to a Hospital and even after treatment, the Medical Practitioner had assessed that there was a permanent impairment to the right upper limb of the appellant, at 60% which according to the medical practitioner's opinion translated to a permanent impairment to the whole-body at 20%. It was on this basis that the appellant had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads: a) Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering b) Rs. 27,000/- towards medical expenses c) Rs. 2,800/- towards other expenses d) Rs. 55,640/- towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. e) Rs. 20,000/- towards his disability. It is further held that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation towards any future loss of income. The appellant, however, is before the Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The several grounds urged to seek enhancement of compensation under the conventional heads of claim include the ground that even though the appellant continues to work as a driver even after the accident, the appellant would still be entitled to compensation towards future loss of earning capacity.

(3.) AS this is a common question that arises time and again as in the present appeal and others that were heard, the case-law and the principles evolved are reviewed. In C. J. Paul Vs. Syed Peer, AIR 1982 Kant. 281, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with a claim for compensation of a victim of a motor accident, who had sustained a compound fracture of the right patella and a compound fracture of the right femur, whereby his right leg had become shortened by 3 inches and he had a stiffened knee joint, even after treatment, and in addressing the claim for loss of earning has held as follows: