2025:JHHC:11557 -1- Misc. Appeal No. 220 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Misc. Appeal No. 220 of 2017 ---- Shivji Singh, son of late Mangal Singh on his own on behalf of his dependants, resident of Village Ranchi Road, P.O. Marar, P.S. Mandu, District Hazaribagh …....Appellant/Claimant -- Versus -- 1.Rajinder Prasad Yadav, son of Latan Yadav, resident of Village Alpito Choutha, PO Bishungarh, PS Bishungarh, District Hazarigabh ….. Owner of Dumper No.JH-02F-7495 2.Md. Salim Khan, son of late Abdul Aziz, resident of Kazi Mohalla, PO and PS Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh …. Driver of Dumper No.JH-02F-7495 3.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vidya Market, Luxmi Talkies Complex, 2nd Floor, Lepo Road, PO and PS Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh …. Respondent/Opposite Parties. ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. S.T.Rizvi, Advocate Mr. Saurav Anand, Advocate For the Respondent/ :- Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate Insurance Company Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate ---- 11/16.04.2025 In the order dated 28.06.2022 the Co-ordinate Bench has recorded that there is no need of issuing notices upon the respondent nos.1 and 2 who are the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle as the prayer has been made for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3/ Insurance Company. 3. As there is no right of recovery and in view of that notice upon the respondent nos.1 and 2 has been said not to be necessary. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well 2025:JHHC:11557 -2- Misc. Appeal No. 220 of 2017 as the learned counsel for the respondent no.3/Insurance Company. 5. This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 25.01.2017 passed in the Claim Case No.149 of 2007 passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that 85% disability has been proved before the learned court and the insured was a Truck driver and in view of that sufficiently the disablement is there and in spite of that the learned Tribunal has not awarded the future prospects and future loss of earnings as well as the interest and on these grounds the instant appeal has been preferred. He submits that so far as the Award in question is concerned that has already been satisfied by the Insurance Company and the awarded amount has already been received by the claimants. On this ground, he submits that the Award may kindly be modified to the effect to add the future prospect and future loss of earnings and interest. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company submits that the learned court has rightly passed the Award and that has already been satisfied and in view of that, there is no illegality in the impugned award. 8. Issue no.3 is with regard to the entitlement of compensation and damages arising out of the said accident. 9. The learned Tribunal has considered the statement of PW1 Shivji Singh who was the injured and he has stated on 26.12.2006 he was got admitted Brindavan Hospital and Research Centre (P) Ltd, Ranchi Road, Marar, Ramgarh and was discharged on 07.01.2007. Dr. Dinesh Kumar has treated and advised him for next three months complete bed rest which indicated in Mark-X-6 and incurred Rs.2,60,570/- on his treatment however the medical bills were said to be of Rs.28,899/-. The Disability Certificate, Exhibit-3 has been issued by Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Vaishali disclosing 85% physically disabled and in view of that the learned Tribunal has found that disability of 85% is 2025:JHHC:11557 -3- Misc. Appeal No. 220 of 2017 there. However, on the point of future prospects and future earnings, there is no award. If such a situation is there, the future prospects is required to be taken into consideration, thus, is to assess as to whether the permanent disability has any effect on the earning capacity of the injured or not. In this regard, a reference may be made to the case of “Sandeep Khanuja V. Atul Dande and Anr., 2017 (3) SCC 351 wherein para-14 it has been held as under :- “14. The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration, thus, is to assess as to whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. In this sense, MACT approached the issue in the right direction by taking into consideration the aforesaid test. However, we feel that the conclusion of MACT, on the application of the aforesaid test, is erroneous. A very myopic view is taken by MACT in taking the view that 70% permanent disability suffered by the appellant would not impact the earning capacity of the appellant. MACT thought that since the appellant is a Chartered Accountant, he is supposed to do sitting work and, therefore, his working capacity is not impaired. Such a conclusion was justified if the appellant was in the employment where job requirement could be to do sitting/table work and receive monthly salary for the said work. An important feature and aspect which is ignored by MACT is that the appellant is a professional Chartered Accountant. To do this work efficiently and in order to augment his income, a Chartered Accountant is supposed to move around as well. If a Chartered Accountant is doing taxation work, he has to appear before the assessing authorities and appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act, as a Chartered Accountant is allowed to practice up to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Many times Chartered Accountants are supposed to visit their clients as well. In case a Chartered Accountant is primarily doing audit work, he is not only required to visit his clients but various authorities as well. There are many statutory functions under various statutes which the Chartered Accountants perform. Free movement is involved for performance of such functions. A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily abled. Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age. Though the High Court 2025:JHHC:11557 -4- Misc. Appeal No. 220 of 2017 recognised this, it did not go forward to apply the principle of multiplier. We are of the opinion that in a case like this and having regard to the injuries suffered by the appellant, there is a definite loss of earning capacity and it calls for grant of compensation with the adoption of multiplier method, as held by this Court in Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd:- “9. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. 10. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of lifetime’s earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases and that is now recognised mode as to the proper measure of compensation—is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.” 10. In the case of Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2011 (1) SCC 343, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of the permanent disability on his earning capacity. In para 10 and 11 of the said judgement the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a 2025:JHHC:11557 -5- Misc. Appeal No. 220 of 2017 permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 4 and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.)” 11. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the appellant herein was the driver and he was driving a heavy vehicle/truck and he has suffered 85% injury on his leg. The appellant/claimant is required to move and in view of 85% injury in his leg, the appellant is having hinderance in his movability which clearly proves the functional disability of the appellant which will severely impact his earning capacity. 12. It is well settled position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income but also future prospects and in many cases it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts that just compensation must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant as 2025:JHHC:11557 -6- Misc. Appeal No. 220 of 2017 he was before the accident took place. In the case of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the applicable 40% addition of future prospects was given compensation considering the age of 25 years and so far as the appellant is concerned, he is said to be aged about 46 years at the time of accident. 13. In view of the “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra) case, the future prospects and future earnings is applicable so far as the appellant is concerned in view of the disability of 85% and that will be 25% on future prospects and future earnings, and as such, the Award dated 25.01.2017 passed in the Claim Case No.149 of 2007, is, hereby, modified to the effect that, the appellant-herein will be entitled to 25% of future prospects. The interest will be also added at the rate of 7.5 % per annum on the entire awarded amount including the modified head in terms of this order. 14. The learned Tribunal will calculate the same with interest from the date of filing of the application. 15. The instant appeal, being Misc. Appeal No.220 of 2017 is allowed in the above terms, and disposed of. 16. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned court concerned forthwith. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/ A.F.R.