IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the claimant to enhanced compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on considerations of actual income, future prospects, non-pecuniary damages, and medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. This instant First Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 22nd December, 2014 passed by Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Tamluk –cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tamluk thereby the learned Tribunal allowed the MACC No. 46 of 2013 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on contest against OP 2/United India Insurance Company Ltd. and ex parte against OP 1/owner of offending vehicle without any cost on account of injury suffered by the appellant/claimant and awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,01,884/-along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 30.11.2012 till final realization.

2. The brief facts of this case are as under:

2a. On 06.09.2012 at about 4 PM, while the victim was standing on the extreme left side of Kakgachiya on NH 41 road and talking with his friends at that point of time, the vehicle bearing No. WB 20U/7176 (Xylo) which was going towards Mechada side from Haldia with extreme high speed endangering to human life and safety all on a sudden dashed the victim and his friends with great force as a result of which, the victim sustained grievous injury all over his person and further suffered fractured injury in left leg and injury left upper limb. The victim was removed to Tamluk District Hospital and, thereafter, he was shifted to Nightingale Hospital, Kolkata. He was further shifted to Apollo Hospital, Chennai when his condition became worse. At the time of accident, he was 33 years old and he was collecting betel leaves and supplying the same to the market of Kaktiya and Ramtarakhat. His income was Rs.7,000/-per month prior to his accident. Due to such sudden accident, he became disabled to the extent of 60% and he could not perform his work at all. As such he filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 12 lakhs plus interest including litigation costs.

2b. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence both oral and documentary brought on record by the parties, the learned Tribunal Judge has assessed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,01,884/-. Learned Tribunal assessed income of the appellant of Rs. 3,000/-per month as notional income and also added the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 6, 34,684/-to the total compensation. Appellant, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with compensation, filed this instant appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as learned Tribunal did not consider the future prospect, actual income and non-pecuniary damages.

3. Under the above facts and circumstances, the appeal has come up before this Bench for disposal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

4. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant submitted that the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant was inadequate as such the appellant/claimant prays for enhancement of the awarded compensation.

4a. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal did not consider the actual income of the victim as Rs. 7,000/-per month as claimed in the claim application. It ought to be considered by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 7,000/-per month instead of Rs. 3,000/-per month. In alternative, he prays for consideration of his income not less than Rs. 4,000/= as per the statics of the market price of commodities and minimum earning at the time of accident. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal did not add the compensation under the head of future prospect and non-pecuniary damages. If the learned Tribunal would have been considered compensation towards future prospect and non-pecuniary damages, the awarded compensation would have more than the aforesaid awarded compensation.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1/INSURANCE COMPANY:

5. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company vehemently opposed the prayer of