The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and reasonable compensation for loss of income and occupation due to disability, based on the principles outlined in relevant Supreme Court decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed dated 18/04/2007 passed in Claim Petition No.630/2003 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur awarding compensation of Rs.5,81,000/-. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation.

3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as under :

A] The appellant on 11/10/2002 was travelling in travel bus bearing No.MH-31-W-6700 from Hyderabad to Nagpur. Said bus was driven by its driver in an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner. When the said bus reached at Mouza Ghat Sawali NH No.7, at the relevant time bus driver has lost his control and bus turtle down. In the alleged accident, the appellant received several injuries all over the body. After the accident he was immediately removed to Indira Gandi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur for treatment. Regarding the said accident, the crime was registered against bus driver vide Crime No.78/2002.

4. As per the contention of the claimant that in the alleged accident he sustained extensive degloving injury on right thigh with traumatic amputation left with fracture right fibula under third closed. He has undergone the skin grafting on 29/11/2002. Said injuries sustained by the claimant resulted into 75% permanent disability. As per contention of the claimants at the time of alleged accident, he was doing the business as a cloth merchant and used to sell the cloths in village and was earning Rs.9000/- per month. Due to the permanent disability as his left hand was amputated below elbow, his working capacity is affected as well as his occupation is also affected. For all above these grounds he claimed the compensation under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads.

5. The claim of the claimant was resisted by respondent No.2 – Insurance company on the ground that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation as the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. The respondent No.1 failed to appear and not resisted the claim.

6. To substantiate the contention, the claimant has adduced his evidence vide (Exhibit 21) and also placed reliance on First Information Report (Exhibit 22), Spot panchnama (Exhibit 23), Accident form (Exhibit 24), Discharge Card (Exhibit 25), Disability Certificate (Exhibit 26), Income Tax acknowledgment (Exhibits 27 and 28) and Medicine Bills (Exhibit 29). After appreciating evidence, the Tribunal had considered the notional income of the injured and awarded the compensation of Rs.5,81,000/- along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award, present appeal is preferred for enhancement on the ground that the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation inadequately without considering the income of the injured. It is the contention of the appellant that though physical disability is ascertained at 75% however, entire occupation of the claimant is affected, therefore, it is to be considered as 100%. In view of that the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation at the enhanced rate.

8. Heard Shri S.S. Alaspurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant. He submitted that the claimant was a businessman and was selling the cloths by moving from one village to another village in a weekly market of the concerned village. As the left hand of the claimant was amputated now he is unable to carry his stock to sell it in the market place. Thus, the disability of the injured is 100%, and therefore, he is entitled for compensation by considering his disability 100%.

9. In support of his contention he placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. (2018) 15 SCC 654, Sarla Verma (Smt) and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343,