The principle of restitutio in integrum mandates that compensation should restore the claimant to their pre-accident condition, considering future earning potential and disability.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Admit. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

3. This appeal filed by Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenges judgment and award dated 21/04/2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in M.A.C.P. No.141/2015.

4. Brief facts leading to the appeal can be stated thus:

On 26/07/2014, at about 05:00 a.m. claimant Santosh Kudale was proceeding from Narayangavhan to Ahmednagar on motorcycle bearing No.MH-17-L-1960 along with his nephew Bhushan Kudale being a pillion rider. When they reached near village Mhasne-Fata on Pune-Nagar road, one Tata Magic bearing No.MH-16-AT-4079 coming from Nagar to Pune, without giving any signal suddenly turned to right side from the gap provided in the divider and proceeded towards petrol pump of opposite side. As the Tata Magic suddenly crossed the road, motorcycle of claimant Santosh dashed against said vehicle. He sustained grievous injury to his head, he also sustained other injuries and became unconscious. After accident claimant was taken to Omkar Hospital, Supa and from there to City Care Hospital, Ahmednagar. Thereafter he was shifted to Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune and was admitted there from 26/07/2014 to 28/07/2014. He underwent various critical operations of brain. After discharge from there, he was admitted in Manikchand Hospital, Shirur, on 29/08/2014. He lost control over his brain. He was again admitted in Sancheti Hospital, Pune, on 03/09/2014 and underwent surgery of skin grafting and was discharged on 08/11/2014. Thereafter he took treatment as outdoor patient. He filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- including Rs.15,00,000/- towards medical expenses incurred by him.

5. Owner of the offending vehicle failed to file written statement. Insurance Company resisted the claim by filing written statement, contending that claimant was rash and negligent in driving the motorcycle and he himself gave dash to Tata Magic at the end of crossing. Excessive compensation is claimed by claimant.

Tribunal allowed the claim and directed the owner and Insurance Company to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.77,08,566/- along with 8% interest to claimant. Insurance Company is aggrieved by this decision.

6. Heard learned advocate for appellant/Insurance Company, learned advocate for respondent No.1/claimant and learned advocate for respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle.

7. Learned advocate for appellant/Insurance Company assailed the findings recorded by Tribunal contending that there is clear-cut contributory negligence on the part of claimant and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on Insurance Company. Considering the evidence of doctor who is examined by claimant, this cannot be said to be a case where claimant has lost his total earning capacity, as admittedly the disability certificate shows that claimant has suffered 50% disability. In spite of the fact that as per the material brought on record claimant was appointed as Shikshan Sevak and was getting monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-, Tribunal has erroneously held that after completion of three years continuous service he would have appointed as regular teacher and his salary would be increased to Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. He, therefore, submits that excessive compensation is awarded by the Tribunal and the same is required to be reduced. In support of his submissions, he relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680.

8. Learned advocate for respondent No.1/claimant, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and award. It is submitted that, but for the accident claimant would have been appointed as Assistant Teacher and would have earned salary of Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month, which is rightly considered by the Tribunal. He submits that material on record does not indicate any contributory negligence on the part of claimant. There is no merit i