The main legal point established in the judgment is the calculation of compensation for future income due to disability and the adjustment of the rate of interest.

1. Constable Hari Om, the claimant (appellant in MAC Appeal No.782/2011) was on official duty with his colleague Constable Rajinder Singh, both moving on motor cycle on 17.02.2009 when their vehicle was hit by a tempo bearing registration no.HR 38 K 7828 (the tempo) in the area of Police Station Kashmiri Gate, Delhi causing injuries to each of them. Two accident claim cases were instituted, including one (suit no.268/2009) on 17.07.2009 by the claimant. In each case, the driver, owner and insurer of the truck were impleaded as party respondents, the insurer (National Insurance Company Ltd.) now being in appeal (MAC Appeal No.464/2011).

2. The two cases were clubbed and an inquiry was held. Upon conclusion, the tribunal passed a common judgment dated 05.02.2011 accepting the case that the accident had occurred resulting in injuries being suffered by the claimants due to the negligent driving of the truck holding the said driver and owner of the truck, jointly and severely, liable to pay compensation.

3. The tribunal awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs. 21,94,082/-, it inclusive of Rs.41,100/- towards physiotherapy charges, Rs.30,000/- towards special diet and conveyance, Rs.1,13,646/- towards loss of earnings, Rs. 16,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.18,18,336/- on account of loss of future income due to disability, Rs.1 lakh towards pain and suffering besides Rs.75,000/- as damages on account of future enjoyment. The liability to pay the said amount was fastened on the insurer, the element of interest having been added.

4. The tribunal has found, on the basis of the evidence, that the claimant had suffered multiple fractures including of the right femur, tibia and fibula bones besides dislocation of the elbow and other injuries. The treatment had continued for a period of six months during which the claimant underwent several surgical procedures that included reconstruction of the right elbow. In spite of such medical treatment, he has been rendered permanently disabled, his disability having been certified (Ex.PW 2/1) by a board of doctors to the extent of 45%, this condition on account of fracture and dislocation of the left elbow, nailing of right tibia and femur bone leading to ankylosis of right ankle, knee and hip.

5. The tribunal included in the award the loss of earning for six months calculating it on the then total emoluments of Rs.18,941/- earned per month by the claimant and multiplied it by the period of six months.

6. It noted that the claimant was 32 years old on the date of the accident and it was assumed that there would be a loss of income due to disability in future and the multiplier of 16 applied for such purposes.

7. There is some confusion in the judgment of the tribunal in that while calculating the loss of income due to disability calculations have been made assuming the functional disability to be to the extent of 50 per cent against the then emoluments, though noticing in the same discussion that the element of future prospects of increase, would have effect on promotional prospects, even while, after making an award under the head of pain and suffering, reference is made to the disability to the extent of 45 per cent.

8. The insurer, by its appeal, questions the computation of compensation on the contention that since the claimant has continued to be in the same service, the loss of future income due to disability particularly on the multiplier of 16 is uncalled for.

9. The claimant, on the other hand, presses his appeal to submit that the element of future prospects was not properly considered and factored in. It may be mentioned here that while presenting the appeal the claimant had also raised the issue that on account of the disability suffered, his career has been adversely affected such that he cannot ever be promoted to the higher ranks for which he has not only been an aspirant but also fully qualified.

10. During the course of hearing, however, when a suggestion came that t