The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles to determine compensation for non-earning victims, including homemakers, and the assessment of future prospective rise in income. The court also emphasized the calculation of various components of compensation, such as pain, shock, suffering, loss of amenities of life, and prosthetic arm.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-lady claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 27.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxilliary), Surendranagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 395 of 2008 on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded.

2. The facts of the case are that on 20.02.2008, the claimant was travelling with other passengers in a luxury bus bearing Registration No. GJ-13-V-1062. When the Luxury Bus reached Thansara Road and between Ranipat-Dadholiya, in the jurisdiction of Muli Police Station, it is the case that the Luxury Bus turned turtle as the driver-the respondent No. 2 lost control over the steering because of rash and negligent driving and in the result, the claimant suffered grievous injuries which led to amputation of her left hand.

3. Learned Advocate for the claimant-lady Ms. Amrita Ajmera submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in considering only Rs. 3,000/- per month as the income of the claimant who was aged 28 years at the time of the accident. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that apart from doing labour work she was taking care of her house and was maintaining her family. It is further submitted that because of the accident, she was hospitalized from 20.02.2008 till 13.03.2008 for about 23 days as an indoor patient, the claimant was operated upon and her left hand was amputated from the shoulder. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has seriously erred in granting only Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, while no amount has been granted towards the prosthetic arm and further, very less amount has been granted towards loss of amenities of life which ought to have been considered after appreciating the facts that the claimant was a working woman, was also a house wife and amputation of her left hand would create great hardship in her day to day life and because of the amputation, the claimant had stopped going for any gainful employment nor was she able to get labour work. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not granted any prospective rise in income and the amount under the head of actual loss of income is also erroneously assessed while the amount for the attendant charges considering the permanent disability has not been considered in its right perspective. It is also submitted that amount under the head of special diet and transportation is very less.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant-claimant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 218, Kirti and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 and Rajendra Singh and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 256 to submit that the services rendered by the home maker should not be under estimated and future prospective rise in income should be granted even in the case of a home maker and that there should not be any general differences only on the ground that the work of the home maker do not add economic value to household. Thus, it is further submitted that the parameters fixed in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the rise in future prospective income should be granted to the claimant and hence, this Court may exercise its discretion in the case.

5. Countering the above arguments, learned Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. Y.H. Motiramani submitted that the insurance company, respondent No. 3-IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited has not challenged the assessment of the compensation made by the Tribunal which according to the learned Advocate is just and reasonable. It is further submitted that no evidence has been led by the claimant to show that the cla