The court reaffirmed that compensation must be based on verified income, appropriate multipliers, and consider future prospects in cases of permanent disability due to accidents.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. JOSHI, J.

. These Appeals filed by Insurer as well as Claimants take exception to the judgment and award dated 25^th July 2022 passed in MACT No.132 of 2016 whereby the learned Tribunal granted lump sum compensation to the Claimants in an injury claim.

2. The Insurer take challenges to the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the negligence on the part of another vehicle in occurrence of the accident. It is therefore contended that, since, this is case of the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor-cycle on which the Applicant was pillion rider, the Tribunal ought to have held negligence of the rider of the motor-cycle to the extent of 50% in occurrence of the accident. It is further claimed that, the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the evidence of RTO in order to show that the permit of the auto rickshaw i.e. the offending vehicle expired on 20^th July 2014 and since the vehicle was not having valid permit, there is breach of Terms and Conditions of the policy and hence, Insurer is not liable to make payment of compensation. It is further claimed that the Tribunal has erred in awaring lump-sum compensation of Rs.20 lakhs without recording any reason therefor. On these amongst other contentions the impugned judgment is sought to be set aside.

3. Whereas the Claimants by filing Appeal is seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has committed error in not considering the income of the Injured and the appropriate multiplier has not been applied for the purpose of determination of compensation.

4. The learned counsel for the Insurer submits that the First Information Report (‘FIR’ for short) as well as the panchnama of the spot which finds part of the police papers indicates that the rider of the motor-cycle was equally responsible for the occurrence of the accident. In such circumstances, the rider must be held negligent to the extent of 50%. She further argued that the Tribunal has committed error in granting lump-sum compensation to the Claimant which is on higher side. It is submitted that the Claimant has failed to prove functional disability and hence no compensation for loss of earning can be granted to the Claimant. To support this submission, she referred to the evidence on record. On these amongst other contentions the impugned judgment and order is sought to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Claimant submits that the Claimant has led her own evidence so also examined witness from the school where she was employed. It is his submission that on the basis of the said evidence on record employment and income of the Claimant is proved. According to him, the Claimant was terminated from service owing to the disability caused to her. It is argued that in the accident in question claimant sustained injury to her brain and due to the said injury she is incapacitated even from performing even her daily ritual. It is claimed that during the entire lifetime the Claimant would require assistance for performing day to day activities. It is submitted that since the termination of the Claimant is proved for the disability caused to her, the Claimant is entitled for the compensation by applying appropriate multiplier considering her age and income with future prospects.

6. At the outset, it needs to be seen as to whether this is case wherein contributory negligence can be said on the part of the rider of the motor-cycle in occurrence of th