The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of specific methods for calculating compensation in personal injury claims, the consideration of subsequent judgments for determining just compensation, and the apportionment of negligence between parties involved in the accident.

JUDGMENT

Sandipkumar C. More, J. - The appellants i.e. the original claimant, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 2. 07.2004 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 590/2000, only on the ground of quantum of compensation. The learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 1,01,582/- from the present respondents in accordance with their proportionate negligence in the accident, alongwith interest at the rate of Rs. 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till it's realization. It appears that the learned Tribunal has granted interest at the aforesaid rate from respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the date of their joining as party respondents in the claim petition. It appears that respondent Nos.2 and 4, who are the respective Insurance Company of the offending vehicles tempo and jeep involved in the accident, have satisfied the award by depositing proportionate amounts as directed by the learned Tribunal.

2. Heard rival submissions and also perused the impugned judgment alongwith the record and proceeding in M.A.C.P No. 590/2000.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective, granted meager amount of compensation by ignoring that the appellant had suffered from permanent disability to the extent of 50%, since she lost her right hand due to accidental injury. He further submits that her notional income was also considered towards lower side i.e. only Rs. 2000/- per month for assessing the future loss of income. Further, it is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal granted lump-sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards future loss of income by holding that the appellant, despite amputation of her right hand, was able to do the business of grocery shop.

4. On the contrary, learned Counsel for respective Insurance Companies of tempo and jeep involved in the accident supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the compensation amount has been rightly assessed and there is no need to enhance the same.

5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant - claimant on account of permanent disability and around Rs. 25,000/- towards the medical expenditure, pain and suffering, special diet and conveyance. Moreover, it appears that the learned Tribunal, without any calculation, has granted lump-sum amount of Rs.50,000/- towards future loss of income. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011(1) SCC 343, has laid down a specific method for calculating the amount of compensation in personal injury claims by giving the pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary heads. The aforesaid judgment was not in existence at the time of deciding this claim petition, but it is now settled that subsequent judgments are also applicable to the pending cases and appeals for calculating the amount of just compensation. As such, the compensation in the instant case needs to be calculated considering the aforesaid judgment.

6. It appears that the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of around Rs. 25,000/- under the heads, such as, loss of income, pains and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenses, conveyance and special diet. Moreover, it also appears that the learned Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards 'no fault liability' and a lump-sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards future loss of income. So far as the amount of Rs. 25,000/- granted under the heads such as, loss of income, pain and suffering, medical expenses, special diet, conveyance, etc. is concerned, it appears reasonable. However, the future loss of income needs to be determined by considering the percentage of disability of the appellant multiplied by proportionate loss of inc