The court assessed the compensation based on the evidence presented and found the accident was not due to contributory negligence, leading to the enhancement of the compensation awarded.

1. Impugned Award of 25th July, 2016 grants compensation of Rs.65,20,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum to injured-Navdeep Singh, aged 19 years, on account of grievous injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident, which took place on 13th August, 2010.

2. In the above captioned first appeal, Injured seeks enhancement in quantum of compensation awarded, whereas in the above captioned second appeal, Insurer seeks reduction in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Since both the appeals arise out of common impugned Award, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned Award, is as under:-

“Brief facts of the case are that on 13.08.2010 at about 04:15 pm, injured Navdeep Singh was coming from Nanakmata to his native village by motorcycle i.e. Unicon Honda bearing number U.K.-06-P-9868. When he reached at Chika Ghat suddenly offending vehicle i.e. TATA Security Van Axix Bank Sitarganj bearing number U.K.-04-CA-1482 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and was coming from opposite side and hit the injured due to the forceful impact, he fell down on the road and sustained injury on all over his body. Later on he was shifted to Barailey Hospital.”

4. To render the impugned Award, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) has relied upon evidence of Injured and as per Disability Certificate of 15th September, 2014, the injured had suffered permanent disability of 100% with respect to his whole body. On the strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award has been rendered. The breakup of compensation awarded to Injured by Tribunal is as under:-

5. Learned counsel for Injured seeks enhancement in the quantum of compensation awarded on the ground that the potential income of injured has not been taken into consideration. Injured’s counsel submits that Injured was a student of first year of B.Com and had a bright future and had potential to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. Counsel for Injured relies upon a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalpana Mishra & Ors. 2012 IX AD (Delhi) 407 to point out that addition towards “future prospects” ought to have been made and instead of lump-sum compensation under the head of “loss of future income”, the Tribunal ought to have assessed it by applying appropriate multiplier.

6. Attention of this Court has been also drawn to additional evidence of father of Injured- Balwinder Singh (AW-1); Simran Joshan (AW-2), sister of the Injured; Dr. Virender (AW-3) and Attendant Sonu Singh (AW-4). It is pointed out that father of Injured (AW-1) has proved on record the Mark-Sheet of the Injured, regarding his passing B.Com first year. He has also deposed in respect of estimate for electronic bed, special mattress for that bed and electric wheel chair. It is further pointed out that Sister (AW-2) of Injured has deposed in respect of photographs (Ex.AW-1/9 colly) to indicate present medical condition of Injured. It is also pointed out that Dr. Virender (AW-3) has proved on record a Certificate (Ex.AW3/A) regarding future medical treatment required by the Injured. It is urged that Sonu Singh (AW-4), who is the Attendant of Injured, has deposed that he has b