IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that future prospects and non-pecuniary damages must be considered in compensation calculations for permanent disability under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. This instant First Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant assailing the judgment and award dated 25th day of March, 2014 passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Fast Track Court, Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No. 92 of 2012 thereby the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,67,800/-against the respondent no. 1/National Insurance Company Limited. The said award shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of realization of the award in an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on contest against Respondent No. 1/National Insurance Company Ltd. and ex parte against Respondent No. 2/owner of offending vehicle, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs on account of suffering severe injuries and disablement of the appellant, Sri Joydev Malik due to motor traffic accident.

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

2a. On 20.10.2007 at about 5 pm the appellant was standing by the extreme left side of Panskura-Ghatal pitch road. Suddenly a bus bearing no. WB-29/1026 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner of driving and dashed the appellant as a result, the petitioner sustained deep bleeding injuries on his head, chest and both legs. Local people removed him to nearest Pitpur P.H.C. Thereafter, he was further transferred to Purba Midnapore District Hospital at Tamluk for better treatment. A major operation was done there and his left leg was amputated from the knee. He was treated up to 10.11.2007 as an indoor patient. He sustained permanent disablement due to that motor vehicle accident.

2b. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence, both oral and documentary brought on record by the parties, the learned Tribunal Judge finally came to a conclusion that the appellant/claimant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 80% and calculated the compensation amount on the basis of his income as Rs. 3,000/-per month and finally awarded a compensation as aforesaid.

2c. Feeling dissatisfied with the said inadequate amount of compensation, the appellant filed this instant First Miscellaneous Appeal. Hence, the appeal has come up before this Bench for disposal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal Judge erred in accepting only 80% permanent functional disability though functional disability should be 100% because the victim was working as helper-cum-driver prior to date of accident and his left leg was amputated. He is unable to perform his duties due to amputation of one of his legs. So, his actual permanent functional disability would have considered as 100%. He places reliance of judgments as under:

i) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Gajender Yadav and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9006 of 2017)

ii) Sarnam Singh Versus Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3900 of 2023)

iii) Arjun S/O. Ramanna @ Ramu Versus Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1555 of 2022) and

iv) Pratap Narain Singh Deo versus Srinivas Sabata and Anr., 1976 AIR 222, 1976 SCR (2) 872.

3a. He further raised other issues that the learned Tribunal Judge wrongly assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/-in place of Rs. 4,000/-. The learned Court also did not allow any future prospects or non-pecuniary damages. If the learned Tribunal would have considered compensation on these aforesaid heads of future prospects 40% of the actual income and non-pecuniary damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/= minimum, then the compensation amount would have higher than the awarded compensation. He has submitted that the principle of allowing non-pecuniary damages was specifically discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mr. R.D Hattangadi Versus Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR