- (1.) K.Kannan, J. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained in the motor accident. The claimant/appellant was 25 years of age and was said to be a labourer, earning Rs.3,000/- per month. For the disability assessed at 70%, the Tribunal assessed Rs.1,40,000/-, for the loss of amenities to life through disability and proceeded also to independently assess the loss of income at Rs.1,500/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards miscellaneous expenses. Towards the loss of income, therefore, the Tribunal assessed Rs.2,16,200/- by placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Versus Ram Singh Gaud and others-2008(1) ACJ 242. It provided for medical expenses Rs.30,668/-; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- toward diet and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. In all, the total amount of compensation is Rs.4,24,668/-.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant refers me to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Kothandapani Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited-2011 STPL (Web) 493 when the Court assessed loss of future income independently of the permanently disability and argued that the appellant must be provided compensation for loss of amenities. I do not know as to how such a distinct head is available for the appellant, since in this case apart from assessing Rs.1,40,000/- towards disability, the Court has provided independently for loss of future income. This judgment has therefore no application. The counsel relies on yet another judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Kumaresh Versus The Divl. Manager Natiional Insurance Company Limited and another-2011 STPL (Web) 462, to contend that in a case of amputation suffered by male aged 20 years, claiming to be earning Rs.6,000/- per month as a building centering worker, the Court has awarded Rs.9,97,000/- and seeks for a similar consideration. It is impossible to simply pickup the compensation figure to be applied to the present case by the only fact in both cases the issue was determination of compensation for amputation is required. In the case before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court had provided for loss of future earning at Rs.4,32,000/- on the basis that his income was Rs.4,000/- per month. In this case, the Tribunal has taken the income to be Rs.3,000/- and proceeded to assess the same. Heads of compensation for pain and suffering and for food and nutrient had been assessed at Rs.1 lakh. This Court had an occasion to dealt with the issues relating to compensation for injuries in FAO No.422 of 1993, dated 12.11.2010, titled as 'Madan Lal Papneja Versus State of Haryana and others' setting out the principles for determination of compensation. The Tribunal has already assessed Rs.1,40,000/- towards disability, I take that as a compensation assessed for loss of amenities and I do not think there is any need for making further provision under the head. The only error which the Tribunal has committed is that it has made a deduction of 1/3rd for miscellaneous expenses, which is incorrect. The Court ought to have taken up the income and worked out compensation for loss of work on the basis of earning capacity assessed. For amputation of one leg below knee, the loss of earning capacity shall be taken as 50% as per the Workmen Compensation Act. I work out the compensation at Rs.3,24,000/- (3,000 x 1/2 x 12 x18). The Tribunal has fixed Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, I will increase it to Rs.50,000/- in the manner done by the Supreme Court in Sri Kumaresh (supra). There is also evidence to the effect that the petitioner requires prosthesis to be fixed which would cost Rs.25,000/- for every 3 years. It should have been appropriate if proper evidence had been elicited from the doctor, who was examined. I would take the value of the prosthesis that may have to be used for the rest of his life at an additional amount of Rs.75,000/-. I affirm the award in all other heads. Consequently, there will be an additional amount of Rs.2,23,000/- which shall bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.;