The court's decision emphasized the calculation of damages, restriction of future income prospects, and remittance of the issue of breach of insurance policy terms and recovery rights for further inquiry.

1. Amarjeet Singh (the claimant) had instituted accident claim case (MACT 392/2008) on 03.07.2009 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained and the disability consequently suffered in a motor vehicular accident that had taken place on 28.03.2009 due to negligent driving of a motor vehicle described as JCB bearing registration no. HR-69-8650, which was admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in question with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer). The offending vehicle was proved to have been driven negligently by Roshan Singh, driver and owned by Pradeep Singh (owner), respondents in these appeals. The tribunal held both of them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. It determined compensation in the total sum of Rs.15,93,226/- calculating it thus :-

PECUNIARY DAMAGES (Special damages)

Medical expenses Rs.6,50,000/-

Loss of future income Rs.7,43,526/-

Special diet expenses Rs.25,000/-

Conveyance charges Rs.25,000/-

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)

Pain, suffering, mental shock and trauma Rs.1,50,000/-

Total Rs.15,93,226/-

2. The liability to pay the compensation was fastened on the insurer, its plea about breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy having been rejected on the reasoning that it had failed to prove its case in this regard.

3. The insurer, by its appeal (MACA 1211/2012), questions the award on the ground that the tribunal fell into error by assuming the functional disability to the extent of 70% and by adding the element of future prospects of increase in income to the extent of 50% for calculating the loss of income in future due to disability. It also submits the grievance that its evidence on the issue of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was overlooked and not even discussed.

4. Per contra, the claimant by his appeal (MACA 352/2013) argues that the tribunal has not granted adequate compensation, the award in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the composite head of pain and suffering, mental shock and trauma, being inadequate.

5. The disability has occurred on account of amputation of the right lower limb below knee. In a similarly placed case which was subject matter of MACA 563/2009, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sushila & Ors., decided on 23.08.2017, such condition has been taken as leading to functional disability to the extent of 60%. Having regard to the parity with the present case, the loss of income in future due to disability requires to be assessed accordingly.

6. Following the ruling of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., the element of future prospects of increase in income has to be restricted to 40%. The loss of income in the future due to disability is thus re-calculated as [Rs.3,934/- x 140/100 x 60/100 x 12 x 15] Rs.5,94,820.80, rounded off to Rs.5,95,000/-.

7. The grievance of the claimant about inadequacy of the general damages is correct. In lieu of the composite award, Rs.1,50,000/- is added towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- is further added under the head of loss of amenities of life.

8. Thus, the total compensation in the case, putting together other heads of damages, is calculated as [Rs.6,50,000/- + Rs.5,95,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/-] Rs.15,95,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh and ninety five thousand only). The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.

9. The tribunal’s record would show that the insurer had led evidence on the issue of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by examining Dr. Ajay Kumar Pandey (R3W1), District Transport Officer, Saran Chhapra, Bihar and Rakesh Sonkar (R3W2), Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Noticeably, the evidence of the said witnesses was not even discussed by the tribunal in the impugned judgment. The observation that the insurer had failed