New Delhi, July 7 The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation granted to lawyer, who had suffered 100 percent permanent disability in an accident, from Rs 23,20,000 to Rs 51,62,000, saying he had to suffer post-accident agony for whole life and physical fitness is necessary for a proficient advocate.
A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari said: "He has to suffer post-accident agony for whole life, including the amenities of life, which he can enjoy as a normal man but unable to do so on account of permanent disability."
"In the era of competition, he can perform better as a normal man but is unable to compete with others. Therefore, under the head pain, shock and suffering, amount of compensation deserves to be granted."
The bench noted that a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that for a proficient advocate, the person must be physically fit as he is required to move frequently to attend the professional work, reaching from one court to another, and for movements to complete other professional commitments.
It further added the claimant's lower limb is completely paralysed while his upper limb is partially paralysed, having 100 percent permanent disability resulting in bodily movements being hampered.
"The claimant is required to make extraordinary efforts to attend the proceedings in the court and to come up to the expectations of the client. The disablement suffered by the claimant is for whole life and in the said fact, in our considered view, the future loss of earning calculated by the high court only for 10 years is not justified," said the bench.
The claimant, Abhimanyu Pratap Singh, met with an accident in 1996, when he was 5 years old. In 1997, a claim petition was filed on behalf of Singh seeking compensation of Rs 2 crore. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) granted him a total compensation of Rs 9 lakh in 2002. The MACT order was challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which in 2019, which enhanced the compensation to Rs 23,20,000. The claimant moved the Supreme Court challenging the high court order.
Singh contended that the high court did not consider the loss of earnings for lifetime and only computed the loss for only 10 years on the ground that he was not practicing as a lawyer. The high court granted Rs 6,00,000, for 10 years.
At this, the apex court said: "The high court in the impugned order observed that the claimant has now started practice as an advocate, therefore, future loss of earning has been calculated only for 10 years, applying the multiplier of 16, without looking to the facts that claimant cannot perform the work of advocacy similar to the other advocates by attending the cases in different courts."
The bench noted that the claimant's father was a professor and the mother was an IAS officer. "He was planning to become an executive or IAS officer. On account of the injuries in the temporal region and the permanent disability suffered, he was unable to do his studies as expected or planned. After sincere efforts he could have passed the LL. B and started the advocate profession," said the bench.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor