IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of prospective rise in income and functional disability in motor accident claims, emphasizing the need to consider the injured and the deceased at par and to assess functional disability in line with the claimant's vocation and the severity of his injuries.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Notice was issued to the respondent/s by an order of this Court dated 12.12.2022.

2. Since the learned Advocates for the respondent-Insurance Company are on record, considering the ground raised before this Court and with the consent of learned Advocates on record, this Court is inclined to decide this First Appeal at the admission stage. Hence, ADMIT.

3. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-injured claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No. 636 of 2017.

4. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put succinctly as under:

On 27.09.2016, the claimant aged 19 years was returning to his home on his motor cycle, was driving in moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. When the claimant reached at the place of accident, i.e. near Rutu Farm, Village Bhumol, at around 7.45 pm, the respondent No. 1 the driver of the Maruti Car bearing Registration No. GJ-23-A-8592 came in a rash and negligent manner, in excessive speed, endangering human life and dashed the motor cycle of the claimant as a result, the claimant was flung on the road, the claimant suffered serious injuries on his head and both his hands and legs. He suffered fracture injuries and according to the Medical Certificate, the claimant was first kept as an indoor patient at Zydus Hospital, Anand, was in ICU for 45 days and at the time of passing of the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, he was taking treatment as an outdoor patient.

5. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, who submitted that the claimant is a labourer and the learned Tribunal has considered his income as Rs. 5,000/- per month as was urged by him. However, the prospective rise in income has not been granted considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Husain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 Live Law SC 1017, wherein it has been noted that the prospective rise in income is required to be assessed even in case of an injured person and there should not be any differentiation in case of injured and of the deceased and the prospective rise in income is required to be assessed at par. Hence, it is stated that since the age of the injured was 19 years, 40% prospective rise in income is to be considered. It is further submitted that the medical bills of Rs. 5,34,200/- has been approved by the learned Tribunal and the amount has been granted. However, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is on the lower side. In the same manner, the amount under the head of Special Diet, Attendant Charges and Transportation is also not properly granted taking into consideration the fact of the claimant being in ICU for 45 days as an indoor patient. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has assumed 35% physical disability but has not assessed the functional disability of the claimant who belongs to the labour class and because of his physical disability would not have been in a position to continue with his work as he was doing earlier. It is further submitted that the loss of amenities of life and marriage prospects is also required to be considered and hence, has submitted for indulgence of this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company Mr. Dakshesh Mehta submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed 35% physical disability which has been considered as functional disability and his income has been assessed as Rs. 5,000/- per month and accordingly, the compensation amount has been granted. The medical bills have been proved and granted by the learned Tribunal. In addition, under other heads too, the amount has been appropriately assessed and thus submitted that no indulgence of this Court would be necessary.

7. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and on perusing the records of the c