Calculation of future income and compensation in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal by the appellant-original claimant, challenging the judgment and award, Dated: 15.05.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Fast Track Court No.2, Vadodara (‘the Tribunal’, herein after), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1230 of 2003, whereby, the Tribunal partly allowed the said claim petition and awarded total Rs.1,87,000/- towards compensation, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till realization so also proportionate costs.

2. Learned Advocate, Mr. Modi, appearing for the appellant-claimant mainly submitted that the Tribunal committed an error, while calculating the income of the appellant-claimant by overlooking the relevant documents, though, the same were produced before it.

2.1 It was submitted that, though, the appellant-claimant produced the salary certificate, Exhibit-33, issued by the TVS Motors and he also examined the concerned person, i.e. owner of Jay Ambe Automobiles, who was authorized service provider for the TVS Motors, as a witness vide Exhibit-22, the Tribunal did not consider the same, while calculating the income of the appellant-claimant, and thereby committed a grave error.

2.1.1 It was submitted that, while calculating the income, the Tribunal did not even referred to the aforesaid evidences and thereby, erred in passing the impugned judgment and award.

2.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Modi, submitted that the Tribunal also did not award any amount towards the loss of future or prospective income and committed a serious error.

2.3 It was submitted that, on account of the accident in question, the appellant-claimant sustained 20% disability of the body as a whole, and therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain, shock and suffering is insufficient.

2.4 It was submitted that, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant and the fact that he had to remain in the hospital, as an indoor patient, for about two months, the amounts awarded under the heads attendance charges, transportation charges and towards special diet are very less and the Tribunal ought to have awarded some more amount under these heads.

It was, therefore, prayed that the present appeal be allowed.

3. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Ms. Bhaya, appearing for Opponent No.3-insurer strongly opposed this appeal and submitted that, initially, the appellant-claimant had filed an application under order 44 (1) and Order 33 (1) as a ‘Pauper’, stating, therein, that he was neither having any movable or immovable property and that he is not having sufficient income. It was, therefore, submitted that, at the time of accident, the appellant-claimant was not having any income, and hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

3.1 By relying on the above, it was submitted that the Tribunal rightly did not consider the rise in future or prospective income of the appellant-claimant.

3.2 So far as the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain, shock and suffering, medical expenses, attendance charges etc. is concerned, it was submitted that, since, the appellant-claimant did not produce the sufficient evidence, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the aforesaid heads are just and proper. It was, thus, submitted that the present appeal be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record of this matter and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions from time to time, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just and fair compensation. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed for the reasons given, hereunder.

4.1 From the a perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal, it transpires th