IMPORTANT POINT
Motor accident – Compensation amount under heading medical expenses cannot be limited to bills presented.

ORDER :

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 16th December 2022, passed in Misc. Appeal Nos. 651 and 653 of 2021 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, which, in turn, was preferred against the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2020 in M.A.C.C. No. 500099, 500100 and 500098 of 2015 passed by the 16th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur.

3. The brief facts giving rise to these Appeals are that on 7th March, 2014 at 8.35 am, the Appellant in SLP (C) No. 6428/2023, namely, Karuna Parmar (hereinafter Appellant No. 1), aged 41 years, along with her husband, namely, Ramchand Singh Parmar - Appellant in SLP (C) No. 6314/2023 (hereinafter Appellant No. 2), and their daughter namely Kumari Avika Parmar (deceased), aged 6 years, were travelling on a motor vehicle when they were hit by the offending Vehicle No. 07CO8 2794, a Tata 713 (Truck) driven by Prakash Sinha, Respondent No. 1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner. Both Appellant Nos.1 and 2 suffered serious injuries, while their daughter died as a result of the said motor vehicle accident. The Appellants were treated firstly at Jabalpur Hospital and later on at Marble City Hospital.

4. The Claimant-Appellants filed three applications for compensation which were decided collectively by the Tribunal. Appellant No. sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 56,90,000/- submitting therein that at the time of the accident, she was earning Rs. 16,000/- per month while working as a Professor at Guru Ram Das Khalsa Institute of Science and Technology, Jabalpur, and additionally Rs. 10,000/- per month while imparting tuition to children. As a result of the accident, she is not in a position to undertake these jobs. Appellant No. 2 sought compensation for medical expenses; loss of income during treatment; and pain and suffering to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Lastly, they collectively sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,60,000/- on account of their deceased daughter.

5. The Tribunal, vide its Order, awarded Appellant No. 1 with a compensation of Rs. 3,84,792/- along with interest @ 7%, considering her monthly income to be Rs. 10,000/- per month through tuitions. The salary as a professor was not considered since she had not been working for the last 2-3 years. Her disability was assessed as 5%. Appellant No. 2 was awarded with compensation of Rs. 27,320/- for medical expenses. For the deceased daughter, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,30,000/- along with interest @ 7%, calculating her prospective annual income to be Rs. 21,000, i.e. Rs. 1,750/- per month.

6. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the Appellants filed separate appeals before the High Court, submitting that the Tribunal has incorrectly appreciated the following issues:

(a) Salary of Appellant No. 1.

(b) Disability suffered by Appellant No. 1.

(c) Medical Expenses incurred.

(d) Compensation awarded for the deceased is on the lower side towards various heads.

7. The High Court, vide the impugned order, allowed the appeal of Appellant No. 1, awarding an extra amount of Rs. 1,56,500/- by awarding future prospects @ 30% and a further Rs. 50,000/- under the head of future treatment, as the injury suffered by her was serious in nature. The percentage of disability remained the same. Additionally, Rs. 75,000/- was awarded as a loss of income for 6 months. The total compensation arrived at was Rs. 5,40,792/-. The appeal of Appellant No. 2 came to be dismissed. Insofar as enhancement of compensation towards the deceased child is concerned, in the impugned judgment there is no discussion on the issue.

8. Dissatisfied, the Appellants are before us. The significant points of challenge urged are:

(a) The monthly income