The Supreme Court has increased by ₹24,44,500 the compensation awarded to a carpenter whose leg had to be amputated following a road accident 22 years ago, ruling that carpenters were “skilled artisans” and the mishap had rendered him totally incapacitated for the rest of his life.
Following the apex court order, the total compensation earmarked for Shankar Dutt has gone up to ₹39,95,923 from the ₹11,51,423 awarded by Uttarakhand High Court.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kotdwar in Pauri Garhwal had awarded Dutt a compensation of ₹4,77,823, prompting him to approach the high court and subsequently the apex court.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N.V. Anjaria said the compensation decision must take into account, among other things, the pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident; loss of income, including future income; and the victim’s inability to lead a normal life together with its amenities.
It will also cover medical expenses, including those that the victim may be required to undertake in the future; and “loss of expectation of life” as was held by the apex court in the Jagdish vs Mohan (2018) case and other rulings.
The top court passed the directions while allowing an appeal filed by Dutt challenging the high court’s award as being inadequate and also on the ground that his notional monthly income was erroneously considered to be ₹5,000.
The top court enhanced his notional income to ₹9,000 per month.
Dutt was 38 when the bike he was riding was hit by a Jeep on November 9, 2004. To save Dutt’s life, doctors had to amputate his right leg from below the knee.
“The appellant who got injured in the accident and had to suffer amputation of his right leg below the knee was a carpenter. A carpenter is an artisan. The carpenter is thus a skilled worker who works to bring into existence various items of wood by his expertise and dexterity,” Justice Anjaria, who authored the judgment, observed.
“When the income of the injured appellant carpenter is to be notionally assessed for the purpose of compensation, the fact and the aspect that the appellant was a skilled worker cannot be overlooked and has to be accounted for. A skilled job would always have the potential to fetch and earn a higher income,” he said.
He said the court considered it appropriate to assess the income of the appellant at ₹9,000 per month for the purpose of computing the compensation.
“The loss of earning capacity is an important yardstick and it is an acid test which would guide the assessment of compensation by the claims tribunal or the court undertaking such exercise,” the bench said.
The top court said the socio-economic condition of the claimant and the circumstances arising out of it could also be taken into account for adjudging the loss of earning capacity and, thereby, the total compensation.
“The functional disability of the appellant claimant has to be taken properly and reasonably at 100 per cent,” the court said.
“The… compensation of ₹35,95,923 would be just and fair compensation to be paid to the appellant claimant. The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to receive the said total amount with 6 per cent per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment,” it added.
The bench directed respondent No.1 — United India Insurance Company — to deposit an additional ₹24,44,500 over the ₹11,51,423 previously awarded by the high court “with interest at 6 per cent per annum with the claims tribunal within six weeks from today (June 24)”.