The main legal point established in the judgment is the reassessment of compensation under various heads based on the evidence and legal principles.

1. Impugned Award of 14th January, 2013 grants compensation of Rs.26,70,600/- with interest @ 9% per annum to injured-Yogesh, aged 23 years, on account of grievous injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident, which took place on 9th October, 2004.

2. In the above captioned first appeal, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurer’) seeks reduction in the quantum of compensation, whereas in the above captioned second appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by Yogesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Injured’). Since both the appeals arise out of common impugned judgment, 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 as epitomized in the claim petition are that on 09.10.2004 at about 2.00 PM the petitioner was going from Navsena Bhawan to Gulmohar Park, New Delhi and when he reached near Netaji Nagar Bus stop on Africa Avenue Road, all of a sudden a Honda City car bearing no. DL-2FCC-0060 being driven by its driver namely Amar Singh in rash and negligent manner came and hit the claimant resultantly causing grievous injuries on his person. The victim was removed from the place of accident to Safdarjung Hospital for treatment.”

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 (Ex.PW-2/10), the Injured had suffered permanent disability of 40% in relation to left lower limb. On the strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award has been rendered. The breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal is as under:-

5. Learned counsel for Insurer assails impugned Award on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in granting compensation under the head of ‘loss of future earning’ as there is no loss caused to the Injured due to the injuries suffered by him in this accident. It is submitted by Insurer’s counsel that no compensation under the aforesaid head is payable as the Injured continued in the same job and was later on promoted. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in making addition of 100% towards ‘future prospects’ and so, it is submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal needs to be suitably reduced.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Injured refutes the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of Insurer and seeks enhancement by submitting that the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate. Another ground to seek enhancement is that the salary of the Injured would have been Rs.65,000/- per month as on date, but due to the injuries sustained, Injured has been thrown out of the job. Attention of this Court is drawn to evidence of PW-1, i.e., the Employer of Injured, to point out that due to injuries suffered in this accident, the employer has declared that the Injured would not be re-engaged after completion of his tenure. It is submitted by learned counsel for Injured that the compensation granted under the ‘non-pecuniary heads’ is on lower side and it needs to be suitably enhanced.

7. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for Injured upon Supreme Court’s decision in Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors. AIR 2013 SC 3830 to submit that in case like instant one, 100% increase in ‘future prospects’ ought to be granted and the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the differential of the income of the Injured. Reliance is also placed upon Supreme Court’s decision in