LexASRAF ALLI versus M/S. NAVEEN HOTELS LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1493 ASRAF ALLI v. MIS. NAVEEN HOTELS LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 7430 of 2008) DECEMBER 19, 2008 [S.8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] A B Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Permanent disability - Claimant aged 15 years - Amputation of his left lower limb ~ Tribunal awarded compensation by taking his monthly income c at Rs. 3000 and multiplier of 18 - High Court reduced compensation amount by taking annual notional income at Rs. 15000 - On appeal by claimant, Held: On applying Second Schedule appended to the Act, correct multiplier would be 15 and not 18- Item (19) of Part II of Schedule I of the Workm~n Compensation Act, 1923 provides that amputation below D middle thigh to 8. 89 ems. below knee is deemed to result in permanent partial disablement of 60% - Hence, 'percentage of loss of earning capacity should be treated as 60% of the monthly income instead of 70% as treated by the Tribunal - Tribunal's finding that monthly income of claimant was E Rs.3000 upheld - In that view of the matter, total amount of compensation payable under the head loss of future earning capacity would be Rs. 3, 24, 0001-, the annual income being Rs.21,6001- and the multiplier being 15 - Workn)en Compensation Act, 1923 - Schedule I -of Part II - Item (19) F - Workmen Compensation Act, 1923- Schedule I- Part I/- Item (19). Appellant-claimant was aged 15 years when he met with an accident. He sustained serious injuries and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70% of his G left lower limb which had to be amputated. Before Tribunal, several witnesses were examined to prove that the appellant was running a poultry farm independently and earning Rs.5000 p.m. Tribunal awatded 1493 - 1494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A compensation of Rs.4.53 lacs by considering his monthly earnings at Rs.3000, loss of earning at 70% of Rs.3000, and multiplier as 18. The High Court reduced the compensation amount stating that tribunal erred in taking notional income at Rs.3000 and ought to have 8 taken notional income at Rs.15000 per annum and based on such figure awarded Rs.67500/-. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that in the accident, C appellant suffered grievous injuries. PW3, Doctor, in his evidence stated that appellant had been walking with the help of crutches and his left lower limb had been amputated below knee with 3" stump but there was an old scar on right heel and it was on that basis the 0 disability of the appellant was calculated at 70% in respect of lower limb.Appellant was admitted as an indoor patient on 25.9.1998 and was discharged on 26.10.1998. The Tribunal held that the income of the appellant was Rs.3,000/- per month not on a notional basis but on actual basis. The High Court, in exercise of E its jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act either could have affirmed the said finding or reversed the same but for the said purpose it was required to consider the merit of the matter. The High Court, has proceeded on a wrong premise that the Tribunal had F fixed the income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month on a notional basis. However, if the Second Schedule appended to the Act is to be applied, the correct multiplier in the case of the appellant, he being aged about 15 years, was 15 and not 18. [Paras 7, 9. and 10] [1497-E-F; · G 1498-D-H; 1499-A] 2. Item (19) of Part II of Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 provides that amputation below middle thigh to 8.89 ems. below knee is deemed to result in permanent partial disablement of 60%. Hence, the H 'percentage of loss of earning capacity' should be treated ASRAF ALLI v. MIS. NAVEEN HOTELS LTD. & ANR. 1495 as 60% of the monthly income instead of 70% as treat~d A by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the total amount ~ of compensation payable to the appellant under the head 'loss of future earning capacity' would be Rs.3,24,000/-, the annual income being Rs.21,600/- and the multiplier being 15. [Para 11] [1499-A-C] B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7430 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.7.2006 of the ,, High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 3781 e;>f * 1999 (MV)]. c Kiran Suri for the Appellant. A.K. Raina and Anil Kumar Jha for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leav
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.