IMPORTANT POINT
When disability has been found proved, the compensation should not be reduced.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the common final judgment and order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 1536 of 2001 and First Appeal No. 1819 of 2001 which arise out of the award dated 30.05.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Panchmhals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1071 of 1987.

3. By impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent– Corporation and reduced the compensation awarded to the appellant–claimant herein by the MACT and in consequence directed him to refund the excess awarded amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the respondent-Corporation and in consequence dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein for seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the MACT.

4. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, few relevant facts need mention infra.

5. On 13.09.1987, when the appellant–claimant was going on his bicycle from Godhra to Popatpura, at that time, respondent No.2, who was driving S.T. Bus No. GRU-8749 belonging to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (in short “Corporation”) came from Lunawada side and hit the appellant as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries. The appellant was taken to the hospital at Godhra but later on transferred to Baroda Hospital and from there to Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad for further treatment. He sustained a serious head injury as a result of which he lost his memory. Now, he is neither able to speak and nor able to move properly. He underwent medical treatment in hospital for a long time. At the time of accident, he was aged about 35 years and was working as a Constable in SRP. His earning was Rs.1400/-p.m. Due to the accident and resultant injuries sustained, the appellant unfortunately lost his job also.

6. The appellant then filed a claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1071 of 1987 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short, “the Act) for award of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs under various heads. By award dated 30.05.2000, the MACT partly allowed the appellant’s claim petition and held that accident in question was caused due to negligence of respondent No.1 therein (respondent No.2 herein) that the appellant had suffered 50% disability in his body due to injuries sustained and accordingly awarded to him a total sum of Rs.2,19,000/-as compensation which included expenses in receiving treatment and compensation for injuries sustained.

7. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the MACT, the appellant filed an appeal being F.A. No. 1819 of 2001 for enhancement of claim awarded by the MACT whereas the Corporation-respondent No.1 herein filed F.A. No. 1536 of 2001 against that part of the award which allowed the claim petition in part and awarded Rs.2,19,000/-contending that it was on the higher side and hence be reduced.

8. By the common impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by respondent-Corporation and held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,15,200/-towards future loss of income instead of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the MACT and directed the claimant to refund the excess amount of Rs.64,800/-with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the respondent–Corporation. As a consequence, the appeal filed by the appellant herein for enhancement for compensation, was dismissed.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the High Court, the appellant-claimant has filed these appeals by way of special leave.

10. Heard Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for respondent-1(Corporation).

11. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order contended that the High Court erred in