JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. Admit.
2. For the last number of hearings no one is appearing on behalf of the respondent/DTC and I have, therefore, proceeded to decide this matter in the absence of the Counsel for the respondent.
3. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The only ground taken in the appeal for enhancement of compensation is that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased to arrive at the loss of future earnings and appropriate compensation has not been granted for pain and suffering caused to the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant remained in the hospital for a period of about three months and his right leg above knee was amputated and still a meagre sum of Rs. 16,000/- has been awarded as compensation for pain and suffering in favor of the appellant.
4. The Tribunal while considering the income of the deceased has come to a finding that there was no evidence on record to support the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and in the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the income of the appellant, the Tribunal has taken recourse to the Minimum Wages Act and has taken the minimum wages of the semi skilled worker as income of the appellant. The Tribunal has, however, not considered the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased nor the Tribunal has considered the rise in the cost of living and inflation to arrive at the average income of the deceased. It is now well-settled that while assessing the income of the victims of the road accident, the Courts and the Tribunals are required to consider not only the future prospects in his life and career but also the rise in cost of living and inflation. Even the Government has been increasing the minimum wages periodically by issuing notifications from time to time. The minimum wage of semi skilled worker in March 1998 was Rs. 635/- per month whereas in 2002 it had gone up to Rs. 3,313.70 paise per month. There is thus more than four times increase the minimum wages from 1988. This increase is mainly because of the rise in the cost of living and inflation. The age of the appellant was 45 years at the time of the accident and because of one of his legs having been imputated he has suffered more than 50% disability. Under Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act the injuries would be deemed to result in permanent total disablement/permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In terms of the Schedule to the Workmen’s Compensation Act in case of amputation below the middle thigh, the loss of earning capacity is 60%. Since amputation of the appellant’s leg is from above the knee, his loss of earning capacity would be taken as 60%. The Tribunal, however, while deciding the loss of earning capacity has taken the loss of earning capacity at 50% of the earning capacity of the appellant. The income of the appellant has been taken at Rs. 750/- as in January, 1989. This Court taking into consideration the rise in the cost of living and inflation will not be in error in estimating the average income of appellant as Rs. 1,200/- per month or say Rs. 14,400/- per year. The appellant was 45 years of age and the correct multiplier to be applied in his case is 13. The loss of earning capacity, therefore, taking the same at 60% in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, comes to 14,400 x 13 x 60/100 = Rs. 1,12,320/-.
5. The appellant was confined to bed for a period of three months. He is, therefore, not only entitled to the loss of earning for the said period but one can also imagine the pain and agony which he may have suffered because of hospitalisation and amputation of his leg above the knee. I, therefore, award a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant. The appellant will also be entitled to sum of Rs. 2,250/- towards loss of income for the period of three months during which he has hospitalised. The appellant will also be entitled to another sum of Rs. 4,000/-, as has been awarded by the Tribunal, towards medicine and conveyance.
6. The appellant would thus be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,48,570/ – rounded up to Rs. 1,49,000/-. The appellant will also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation, except on the loss of future earning assessed by this Court, from the date of filing of the petition till payment.
7. I, accordingly, allow this appeal, modify the award and enhance the compensation to Rs. 1,49,000/-. The appellant will also be entitled to interest © 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation, except on the compensation awarded towards loss of future earnings from the date of filing the application before the Tribunal till payment. Since the victim of the road accident has in the meantime died, the compensation will be distributed equally amongst the LRs of the deceased appellant who have already been brought on record.