The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to award just and reasonable compensation, particularly in cases involving homemakers who sustain injuries, by considering the invaluable contribution of homemakers and the assessment of loss of future income based on the nature and extent of permanent disablement.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Claimant”) has assailed the judgment and award dated 03/03/2007 passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 457/1993 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). By the impugned judgment and award, the Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 51, 140/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application till final realization.

2. The brief facts necessary to decide this Appeal are as under:-

On 26/03/1993, while the Appellant was proceeding to Ramtek by Car No. MUK-6996, which was driven by her husband Arunkumar Pandya, a jeep bearing No. MTE-2004 dashed against their vehicle as a result of which she sustained multiple fractures. The said jeep was owned by the respondent No. 1 and was insured with the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the Insurance Company”). The Claimant had alleged that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep. She further stated that she had sustained multiple fractures resulting in 20% permanent disablement.

The Claimant therefore claimed total compensation of Rs. 2,84,135/-.

3. The Respondent No. 2, the insurer of the offending vehicle, denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep. The Insurance Company claimed that it was a case of composite negligence. The Insurance Company further claimed that the claim was exorbitant and that it is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the Claimant.

4. The learned Tribunal framed the issues and upon considering the evidence adduced by the respective parties, held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the Claimant had sustained multiple fractures which had resulted in permanent disablement of 20%. The Tribunal considered notional income of the Claimant as Rs. 15,000/- per annum as per Schedule II of the said Act and considering disablement of 20%, the Tribunal assessed loss of earning capacity to Rs. 33,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs. 4,540/- towards medical and hospital bills, Rs. 800/- towards transportation and fees of medical attendant, Rs. 1,500/- towards ambulance charges, Rs. 2,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs. 3,500/- towards charges of staff nurse. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 51, 140/-. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Claimant has filed this Appeal under Section 173 of the said Act.

5. Shri G.E. Moharir, learned advocate for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in considering notional income of the Claimant at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable compensation.

6. Per contra, Shri M.B. Joshi, learned advocate for the Insurance Company submits that the Claimant was a housewife and there is no proof of her income and hence, the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. He submits that the impugned judgment and award does not warrant interference.

7. I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. The only question which falls for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. It is not in dispute that the Claimant was injured in an accident and that she had sustained multiple fractures. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time, the Claimant was 52 years of age and was a housewife. The Tribunal has determined the compensation on the basis of notional inc