The assessment of compensation for personal injuries under the Motor Vehicles Act should consider both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and the multiplier used for calculating compensation should be appropriate to the claimant's age.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J. - This appeal is at the instance of Insurance Company challenging an award dated 16.08.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,2nd Fast Track Court, Tamluk in MACC no. 104 of 2013 disposing of an application U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act awarding a compensation of Rs.5,83,000/- along with 6% simple interest from the date of filing of application if such compensation is paid within one month from the date of the order, in default, interest would be payable at the rate of 9% till recovery. The facts so unfurled are that the claimant while going to his relatives house from his residence by riding a cycle through NH-41 was dashed from behind by the offending vehicle as a result, he sustained multiple injuries in the right side of his eye, leg and all over the body. The victim was taken to a nearby hospital at Tamluk and was later on advised to be shifted to SSKM hospital at Calcutta.

2. It is not in dispute that the victim was under treatment from 20.01.2011 to 29.01.2011 and claimed to have spent more or less Rs.1,00,000/- for her treatment. The accident occurred at 5:00 P.M on 20th January,2011 and the complaint was lodged with the police station on 22nd January 2011. The claimant was nineteen years of age at the time of such accident and was working as a mason earning Rs.250/- per day.

3. It is further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving rashly, negligently and recklessly and no contributory negligent can be attributed to the claimant. The Insurance Company resisted the claim taking a plea of negligence on the part of the claimant and also non-involvement of the offending vehicle. The claim is further resisted on the plea of delayed lodging of a FIR.

4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid pleadings the matter went in trial and the claimant being a first witness ( P.W.1) not only corroborated the statement made in the claim petition but also submitted the disability certificate issued by the medical board evincing the permanent disability to the extent of 60%. The nature of the disability could be revealed from the disability certificate to be quadriparesis and speech abnormality from head injury. In column 7 thereof it is indicated that he needs walking aid. The occurrence of the incident is proved by the eye-witness who was cited as second witness by the claimant and nothing could transpire from the cross-examination of the Insurance Company. One of the doctor who signed the disability certificate was called as third witness by the claimant who explained the cause of disability and its extent. There is no witness cited by the Insurance Company and the claim petition was decided on the basis of the available materials on record.

5. The Tribunal construed the disability certificate and the extent of disability and held that the claimant have suffered a cent percent loss of income and proceeded to assess the compensation both pecuniary and non-pecuniary.

6. The challenge to the award is primarily founded on solitary ground when the disability certificate indicates the permanent disability to the extent of 60%, the Tribunal wrongly proceeded to treat the disability said person in determining the compensation.

7. To elaborate the aforesaid ground of challenge the Learned Advocate for the Insurance company submits that the claimant could not prove that because of such permanent disability he has lost the prospect of earning and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in assessing such permanent disability at cent percent. On the other hand the claimant also challenged a portion of the findings of the Trial Court in cross-objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the code to the extent of the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. According to the Learned Advocate of the claimant considering the age of the claimant multiplier 19 should have been suitably applied instead of 16 as per the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors-Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6