The assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings depends on the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity, as established in the judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another (2011 ACJ 1).

JUDGMENT

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J. -  By preferring this appeal, appellant who is original claimant claiming enhancement of the compensation which is awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. No.169 of 2000 decided on 30.01.2008.

2. Facts leading to file this appeal may be stated briefly as under:

On 21.02.2000, appellant was travelling on Scooter as a pillion rider, one Gupta was riding the Scooter and one another person was sitting in the middle. They were proceeding by Amravati Road towards market. At the relevant time, one TATA Sumo bearing No. MH-27-D-511 came from the Amravati side and was proceedings to Chandurbazar was driven by its driver in excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and dashed against the Scooter. Due to the said dash, appellant sustained grievous injuries like fracture injuries. Due to the said accidental injuries, he had sustained 40% of permanent disablement. As per the contention of the appellant, said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of TATA Sumo driver which is owned by opponent No.2 and validly insured with the opponent No.3 vide policy No.1218831. As the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of TATA Sumo driver which is owned by the opponent No.2 and validly insured with opponent No.3, therefore opponent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation.

3. It is further contention of the appellant that at the time of accident, appellant was serving as a driver in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Chandur Railway and was drawing salary. Due to the accidental injuries, he could not attend the work for 289 days out of the same he was paid for 106 days. He has sustained the loss of income of 183 days. He has also sustained the functional disability, therefore he is entitled to claim the compensation on various grounds. He claimed the compensation by bifurcating the same as follows: Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses, transportation, special diet and others, Rs.4,00,000/- towards the loss of future income, Rs.4,00,000/- towards future prospect which he had lost. Rs.50,000/-towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony of the family and Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of income. Thus, he has claimed total compensation of Rs.9,90,000/-.

4. In response to the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to appear before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company filed written statement and raised the defence that said accident took place due to the negligence of the Scooter rider. The Scooter was driven by its driver and owner by contravening the traffic rules and regulations. Three persons were travelling on the said Scooter at the time of accident, hence Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The defence of the Insurance Company is also that the appellant is still in service, thus he has not sustained loss towards the future prospect and the future income, therefore he is not entitled for compensation under the said heads.

5. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.75,000/- including the NFL amount.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal the appellant claimed the enhancement of the compensation on the ground that learned trial Court had not considered that appellant has sustained functional disability. The Tribunal had also not considered that appellant has not received salary of 183 days and sustained the loss as well as the Tribunal had not considered the loss of future prospect of the appellant, and therefore appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation.

7. Heard learned Advocate Shri S. S. Shingne with Shri Uttam Chakravarti, learned Advocate for the appellant. He reiterated the same contentions and submitted that the Tribunal had not considered that appellant had sustained functional disability. He had also sustai