JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J.

1. This appeal is under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing order dated 27th November, 2014 in MACT No. 358/2012 titled as "Rajneesh Singh v. Dharamvir Sing & Ors." passed by the Ld. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North East District, Karkardooma, Delhi. The Ld. Tribunal awarded a total compensation amounting to Rs. 94,35,950/- to the respondent/claimant against which the appellant insurance company has come up in appeal.

2. The incident occurred at about 4:30 a.m. when respondent No.1 (then aged 23 years) was travelling with his father on a motorcycle driven by respondent No.1. They met with an accident with a Tavera Car No. DL-1YB- 9593. Respondent No.1 and his father were immediately taken to GTB Hospital, Shahdara by a PCR Van. Father of the respondent No.1 was declared brought dead on arrival. Respondent No.1 sustained head injury and other severe bodily injuries. FIR No.73/2012 under Section 279, 338 and 304 (A) IPC, PS New Usmanpur came to be registered against the driver Dharamvir Singh (respondent No.2), who was later arrested.

3. From 22nd March, 2012 till 15th May, 2012, respondent No.1 remained admitted at Max Healthcare Super Specialty Hospital, Indraprastha Extension, Patparganj, Delhi and then from 15th May, 2012 to 19th June, 2012 at Indira Gandhi ESI Hospital, Jhilmil. On 06th October, 2012, the MACT case was filed before the Ld. Tribunal. Evidence was led by respondent No.1 and he examined himself (PW-1), an officer from Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, ICAI (PW-2), representative from Max Hospital (PW-3), and Dr. Tarun Vijay (PW-4).

4. The Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.94,35,950/- out of which Rs.79,60,950/- was pecuniary compensation for the loss of future income due to permanent functional disability and the rest was on account of non-pecuniary compensation as well as compensation for other elements like conveyance, special diet etc. Tabulation of the compensation is provided as under:

S. No.Component of compensation Amount Awarded1.Pain and sufferingRs. 3,00,000/-2.Loss of amenities of lifeRs. 3,50,000/-3.DisfigurationRs. 50,000/-4.Loss of marital prospectsRs. 1,00,000/-Total Non-Pecuniary CompensationRs. 8,00,000/-5.TreatmentNil.6.Loss of earning capacity (Rs. 25,000/- p.m.)Rs. 79,60,950/-7.Special Diet and ConveyanceRs. 50,000/-8.Salary of attendantRs. 75,000/-9.Future treatment/aid for rest of lifeRs. 5,00,000/-Total Pecuniary CompensationRs. 86,35,950/-Total compensationRs. 94,35,950/-

Non-Pecuniary Compensation
Pecuniary Compensation

5. The appeal has been filed by the insurance company canvassing the following grounds:

(i) Monthly income was not established.

(ii) Physical disability and functional disability are two different things.

(iii) Future prospects ought to have been 40%.

(iv) Compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads is incorrectly awarded.

(v) Compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act must be just and cannot be intended to be a bonanza.

The last two grounds were not pressed during arguments being otherwise included as part and parcel of the other grounds and submissions. Therefore, the assessment by this Court is of the first three grounds.

Monthly Income

6. On determination of monthly income, it was submitted by appellant's counsel that the assessment of monthly income of Rs.25,000/- for respondent No.1 as a student giving final year examinations of Chartered Accountancy (CA) was without basis and de hors the evidence on record. What was pressed was that the process of becoming a Chartered Accountant is arduous and only 8.26% of candidates are estimated to pass through the final examinations. The fact that the respondent No.1 had passed the first set of papers could not lead to a safe assumption that he would have passed his final papers for Chartered Accountancy and, therefore, would have earned a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. For this purpose, data from various sources available on the internet has been presen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document