The principle of prospective rise in income should be considered in calculating compensation for future loss of income in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. Draft amendment is granted. To be carried out forthwith.

2. The injured claimant is challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 11.4.2022 passed in MACP no.679/11 by the MACT (Main), Mehsana. With the consent of both the advocates on record, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. Mr. Jay Shah along with Mr. Ankit Shah submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the aspect of prospective rise in income, which has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Referring to the decision in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors, AIR 2020 SC 4424, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the addition to the rise in prospective income. It is stated that though 17% disability has been assessed, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that over and above the physical disability, the claimant had suffered neurological permanent disability of 12% and because of that, he is suffering from memory loss and also has speech impediment and thus, stated that amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering has not been appropriately granted. It is further stated that the medical condition of the claimant would require an attendant and the learned Tribunal could have also granted amount under the head of loss of amenities.

4. While Mr. Palak Thakkar stated that the learned Tribunal has granted reasonable and just amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering. Taking into consideration the mental and physical disability of the claimant, total medical charges of Rs.2,70,000/- has been granted and under the head of special diet, attendance charges and transportation charges, reasonable amount has been awarded by the Tribunal and has also stated that the income per month is assessed as per the evidence and thus, submitted that interference of this Court is not warranted at this stage.

5. On the facts of the case as can be succinctly noted that on 13.2.2011, the claimant who was a paid driver of jeep no. GJ-02 AP-9028 along with other persons was heading towards Varana Village and while returning back home at about 1:30 p.m. near Sarval Village, suddenly one Nilgay (bluebuck) came in the way and the claimant who was driving the vehicle lost control over the jeep and the jeep turned turtle. The claimant as well as other occupants received bodily injuries. The claimant was taken to Sai Krishna Hospital, Mehsana and he sustained mental and physical injury. The age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 47 years. The learned Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.4,500/- per month while considering income from agricultural work and driving work. This Court finds that the said monthly income so assessed is in accordance to the evidence produced on record. However, no assessment has been made regarding the prospective rise in income.

6. In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (supra), it has been held as under:-

17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638], this Court held as follows : (SCC p. 276, para 2)

“2. …There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.”

******* ******** *********

Loss of earnings

20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. can be taken into conside