The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to assess loss of earning capacity and future medical expenses in cases of permanent disability to ensure just compensation.

ORDER

1. Heard finally at admission stage with the consent of both the sides.

2. The dispute in this appeal is restricted to percentage of permanent disability and determination of compensation.

3. The appellant/claimant was serving as a Cleaner on Tata Tempo vehicle bearing registration No.MH-20-CT-6516 owned by one Dilip Suryabhan Vyawahare.

4. On 29.4.2014 at about 1.30 a.m. at midnight, the abovesaid vehicle of the onnallont u/oc ni innti irarl on Ai ironnahorl.Daad hinhxA/ow noor Dondhari Shivar in front of land of Shaikh Rasul. The vehicle was parked by the side of the road and the work of replacing the tyre was in progress. The appellant was replacing the tyre when truck bearing registration No.MH-23-4797 driven in a rash and negligent manner gave dash to the Tata Tempo vehicle which was in stationary condition and caused the accident. The appellant was taken to the hospital for treatment. He was treated at Multispecialilty Hospital Pvt. Ltd. at Aurangabad where he was admitted as indoor patient from 29.4.2014 to 10.5.2014. In the said accident, right leg of the appellant got crushed and it came to be amputed. Left leg was also badly damaged. Dilip Suryabhan Vyawahare (owner of Tata Tempo) lodged F.I.R. about the accident with Police Station, Karmad. On that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered against the truck driver.

5. The appellant had filed injury claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and sought compensation assessed at Rs.60 lakhs.

6. The learned Member, M.A.C.T. Aurangabad was pleased to allow the claim partly to the extent of Rs.14,22,457/- (including N.F.L. amount) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation.

7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Member, M.A.C.T., Aurangabad, the original claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

8. Heard Mr Sanket S. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for appellant/claimant, Mr V.P. Savant, learned Advocate for respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle and Mr Abhijit Choudhari, learned Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

9. Mr Sanket S. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for appellant vehemently submitted that the tribunal has committed mistake in accepting income of the appellant at Rs.6,000/- per month when there was enough evidence to show that his income was Rs.10,000/- per month at the relevant point of time. He submitted that the appellant has produced permanent disability certificate vide Exh.59. The permanent disability of the appellant is determined at 85%. The tribunal has committed an error in determining the permanent disability at 45% by interpreting the evidence of expert Doctor in an improper way. The tribunal has also not considered future medical expenses for replacement of artificial leg. He submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is inadequate having regard to the facts of the case and evidence on record. He, therefore, urged to allow the appeal by enhancing the amount of compensation.

10. Mr Sanket S. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the appellant/claimant has placed his reliance on following stock of citations in support of his argument on the point of permanent disability and compensation thereof.

(i) Civil Appeal No.8420 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Civil No.1159 of 2018) dated 21.8.2018.

(ii) National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors., reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.

(iii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malahi and anr., reported in (2014) 11 SCC

(iv) Syed Sadiq and ors., Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735

(v) Dinesh Singh Vs.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and anr. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 241

11. Mr Abhijit Choudhari, learned Advocate for respondent no.2/lnsurance Company supported to the findings recorded by the tribunal. He submitted that there was variance in between