The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for motor accident claims based on the impact of the injury on the income-generating capacity of the victim and the assessment of loss of earning capacity in relation to the victim's profession, vocation, or business.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 28.09.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award.) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North East, Karkardoom, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACT Case No.402/2010, titled Chitra v. Mufid Khan & Ors..

2. The respondent no.1 herein had filed the above Claim Petition stating that on 31.10.2010, at about 9:25 p.m., she along with her husband, namely Dharmender, and daughter, namely Dristi, were returning back from the house of their relative in a two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL 6ST 7734. The scooter was hit from behind by a truck bearing no. HR 55H 5499. As a result of the accident, the respondent no.1 suffered grievous injuries and same was assessed as 60% disability with respect to the right lower limb. She, in fact, suffered amputation of right leg below knee.

3. On the above fact, the learned Tribunal vide the Impugned Award found that the respondent no.1 herein had sustained injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Offending Vehicle, that is, the truck. On the quantum of the compensation payable to the respondent no.1, the learned Tribunal found that the respondent no.1 has not been able to prove that she was earning member of the family. The learned Tribunal, therefore, awarded the compensation taking the Minimum Wages of a graduate in order to calculate the loss of income. As far as the age of the respondent no. 1 is concerned, it is not disputed that the respondent no.1 was 26 years old at the time of accident. On the question of disability, the learned Tribunal considered 60% of the disability to the whole body for the purpose of calculation of the future loss of income/gratuitous services. It is challenging this head of compensation that the present appeal has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as 60% of the disability was opined only for the right lower limb, it could not have been taken at the same percentage for the whole body. He further submits that by the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.8 Lakh to the respondent no.1 towards the cost of implantation of an artificial limb. He submits that once this amount is awarded, in any case, the compensation could not have been awarded taking the disability of the respondent no.1 as 60% to the whole body.

5. I find no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. As has been found by the learned Tribunal and not disputed, the respondent no.1 was a home maker and has suffered amputation of the right leg below knee. For a home maker, therefore, such injury would have grave consequences, especially keeping in view the strata to which the respondent no.1 belongs. It would certainly impair her house work and therefore, no fault can be found in the Impugned Award where it considers her disability as 60% to the whole body.

6. In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218, the Supreme Court has observed thus:

"62. The alternative to imputing money values is to measure the time taken to produce these services and compare these with the time that is taken to produce goods and services which are commercially viable. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by women in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep human societies going by weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good repair. If we take these services for granted and do not attach any value to this, this may escalate the unforeseen costs in terms of deterioration of both human capabilities and social fabric.

63. Household work performed by women throughout India is more than US $ 612.8 billion per year (Evangelical Social Action Forum and Health Bridge, page 17). We often forget that the time spent by women in doing household work as homemakers is the time which they can devote to paid