Permanent disability assessments should reflect a claimant's actual earning capacity and modifications in damage awards must be proportionate to the severity of injuries.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. These appeals have been filed by insurance company and the claimant respectively. The Insurance company has filed the appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’), seeking to set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 20^th February 2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (“MACT”), Saket in MACT No. 3486/2016. Whereas the claimant has filed cross-objections to the same under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking enhancement of the award.

2. The appeal filed by the insurance company is essentially on the ground that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant compensation under the heads of non-pecuniary damages, i.e. loss of expectation of life (Rs.3 Lacs), pain and suffering (Rs.3 Lacs), loss of amenities of life (Rs.3 Lacs), disfiguration (Rs.50,000/-) and special diet and conveyance charges (Rs.90,000/-).

3. On the other hand, the claimant has filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Incident

4. On 9^th September 2015 at about 2.30 p.m., Mr. Rajender alias Bunty was returning to his house from the side of Pallapul, Faridabad, on the road parallel to Agra Canal, riding on motorcycle bearing registration number DL-3SCW-9636, which was driven by Mr. Bunty, with Mr. Rajhans sitting as the pillion rider.

5. When they reached Shyam Colony, Durga Builder, a Nissan Micra Car (hereinafter the ‘offending vehicle’), bearing registration No. DL-2F-0001, driven by Mr. Vijinder (driver), allegedly in a rash, negligent manner struck the motorcycle. As a result, Mr. Rajender alias Bunty fell down and sustained injuries.

6. An FIR No. 480/2015 under Sections 279 /337/338/304A of Indian Penal Code, registered at PS Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad.

7. Claim petitions were filed. Sh. Bunty (driver) and Smt. Indu (owner) filed their written statements, as also the insurance company (appellant herein). The insurance company pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and, therefore, there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was further pleaded that there was contributory negligence on part of the injured, since he was allegedly driving the motorcycle at high speed.

The Impugned Award

8. On issue of negligence, relying on the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pushpa Rana , 2009 ACJ 287 , the MACT reached a conclusion that issuance of the chargesheet under Sections 279 /304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with the recovery memo, and the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, constituted sufficient proof that the driver was negligent, and the injuries were caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

Compensation awarded

9. Regarding compensation, placing reliance on Ankur Kapoor v. United Insurance Company Limited , (2018) 1 SCC 136 , the Tribunal on the basis of the disability certificate showing permanent physical disability to the extent of 41% in relation to the right lower limb, which was non-progressive and not likely to improve, awarded Rs.14,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, and Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of expectation of lif