The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper consideration of future income and loss of career in determining compensation for motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

(S.G. Dige, J.) :

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/orig. claimant (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimant’) for enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :

On 04.05.2002 at 1.00 pm the claimant Nitin was proceeding to Nandi Stop Latur from Ashok Hotel to attend tuition class by riding on a motor cycle owned by his brother Sachin-opponent no.4. He was proceeding from flyover bridge situated at Shivaji Chowk Latur and he was negotiating 900 angle turn towards Southern side by riding on the motorbike. At that time, the jeep bearing registration No.MH-24-C-2045 driven by opponent no.1-Sunil came from opposite direction in high speed. The opponent no.1 was driving it in rash and negligent manner and in high speed. All of sudden the jeep dashed against the motorbike driven by the claimant. Due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries. He was immediately shifted to the Appi Accident Hospital, Latur. He undergone three operations therein. The nailing has been made to his fracture bones. The crime was registered against the driver of Jeep.

3. The Claim Petition was filed by the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Latur for getting compensation (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal has considered 75% negligence of the Jeep driver and 25% negligence of the claimant and has awarded Rs.2,02,575/-. Against the said judgment and order this Appeal for enhancement.

4. It is contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, the claimant was hospitalized for a period of 25 days and thereafter, he had visited hospital for follow up treatment for six months, but Tribunal has not considered this fact and has awarded lesser compensation. The claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability. The age of the claimant was 19 years at the time of accident. Considering the age of the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have granted proper compensation, but Tribunal has not granted just and proper compensation. The Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. No multiplier is applied.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that at the time of accident the claimant was clever student studying in 12th standard in Science faculty. He was persuading study hard so as to get admission in the medical college, but due to accident he was compelled to leave his studies and consequently, it affected his career adversely. Due to the accidental injuries, he is permanently disabled. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments:

1. Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and Others reported in (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 413.

2. M. R. Krishna Murthi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2020) 15 Supreme Court Cases 493.

6. It is contention of the learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 5 that, accident was occurred on flyover bridge. There was negligence of claimant itself. In cross-examination of the claimant he admitted that, after impact he felt on the bonnet of the said Jeep, which reveals and indicates that claimant was driving motorcycle in rash and negligent manner. The place of the accident was in the middle of the road. From the evidence of Doctor, it revealed that the claimant has not sustained functional disability. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper.

7. I have heard all the learned counsel.

8. The issue involved in this Appeal is whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and whether future income of the claimant is not properly considered. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, claimant was clever student and he was persuading study hard so as to get admission in the medical college, but due to the accident he was compelled to leave his studies and consequently it affected his career adversely. The claimant-Nitin Sonta