MAHOMED HANIF DALLU Vs. LUNKARAN GANPATRAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. R. N. Oza the learned Advocate appearing for the appellantclaimant has addressed us in support of his appeal for enhanced compensation. Mr. Oza submitted that on the count of proper damages the appellant was entitled to compensation on four sub-heads:

(2.) Now in order to appreciate the controversy raised between the parties it would be necessary to keep in view the type of controversy which has arisen before us. The claimant himself is an injured person. He claims compensation on account of the bodily injury received by him which has resulted in amputation of both of his legs. In such cases the proper principles for awarding compensation have now been well settled by this Court. We may refer to the relevant decision on the point in the light of which the present controversy between the parties will have to be resolved by us. In the case of RANJITSINGH GOPALSING & ORS. V. MEENAXIBEN RAJMAL MEHTA REPORTED IN 13 G.L.R. 662. Division Bench of Court observed that it is a settled principle that in disablement cases the compensation awards are always higher than even in cases of death because the compensation has to be given to a living victim both for his personal loss and for the economic loss The principles laid down in such cases can be summarised in three propositions as under:-

(3.) In the aforesaid decision it has been further observed that in estimating the future loss of income the primary consideration must be the nature and extent of the disablement of the limb permanent or temporary total or partial and its likely resultant effect on the earning capacity in the chosen avocation profession or employment of the injured person. It is therefore not right to treat this problem as an abstract mathematical exercise and to make the future loss of income co-extensive with the percentage of permanent disability regardless of the other relevant consideration. While computing the economic loss the Court in the aforesaid judgment adopted 15 years multiplier for capitalising the net annual income of the injured victim. So far as the damage on the aspect of pain and suffering were concerned the court observed that Rs. 15 0 would serve the purpose and would be a just compensation for the pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life which the victim suffered on account of the injury received by him.