The notional income of a student undergoing a degree course in a premier institute should not be equivalent to the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker. The court has the power to exercise Article 142 of the Constitution of India to enhance compensation based on the appellant's notional monthly income.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Not satisfied with the enhancement granted by the High Court in an appeal arising out of the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the claimant has come up with the above appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

4. In a road traffic accident that occurred on 10.12.2013, the appellant suffered multiple injuries, ultimately resulting in the amputation of his right leg. Therefore, he filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala claiming a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

5. By an award dated 13.07.2015, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.5,62,000/- payable by the insurer together with interest @ 7.5 % per annum.

6. Claiming enhancement of compensation, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.14,66,800/-, to be paid with interest @6% per annum. Not satisfied with the said enhancement, the appellant is before us.

7. The main grievance of the appellant is about the compensation awarded towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered by him. The claim of the appellant was that at the time of the accident, he was 21 years of age pursuing a course in Food Technology in SLIET and that he was also earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- by taking tuitions for some students. The Tribunal disbelieved the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs.10,000/-per month by taking tuitions. The Tribunal also refused to give any credence to the disability certificate filed as Exhibit C-35, on the ground that the Doctor who was examined as a witness to prove the disability certificate, was not a member of the Committee which issued the disability certificate. Therefore, all that the Tribunal awarded was (i) a sum of Rs.4,52,000/- towards medical expenses; (ii) Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges; (iii) Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering; and (iv) Rs.50,000/- towards hospital charges and special diet, totaling into a sum of Rs.5,62,000/-.

8. The High Court reversed the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the disability certificate and held that the oral testimony of CW-3, the Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital, Rajpura cannot be totally discarded, as he was able to identify the signatures of the members of the Committee which issued the disability certificate Exhibit C-35. The High Court also held that the principles laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, for the determination of compensation in the case of permanent/partial disablement have to be followed and that due to the amputation of the right leg, the loss of future earnings should be assessed by taking the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 40%. The High Court fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.5,000/- and applied the parameters laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 to come to the conclusion that an increase of 40% should be provided towards future prospects. The High Court also took the multiplier as 18 on the basis of the guidelines provided in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.

9. Thus, the High Court arrived at an amount of Rs.6,04,800/- as compensation for loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, the computation of which was as follows:

10. The amount of Rs.50,000/- aw