The court established that future income loss must account for potential salary increases and accurately reflect the claimant's functional disability.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the original opponent no.3- National Insurance Company Limited, Surat, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 31.03.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) and Additional District Judge, Bharuch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.776 of 2007. By the said impugned judgment and award, the learned Judge has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimant holding opponent nos. 2 and 3 negligent to the extent of 70% and opponent nos. 4 and 5 to the extent of 30%. The Tribunal has further directed the aforesaid opponents jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.38,72,917/- as compensation to the original claimant, together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

2.0. The facts of the case in nutshell are reproduced herein under:

2.1. The injured claimant along with other passengers was traveling in Tata Sumo bearing registration no.GJ-23-A-572. On 18.03.2007 while they were returning from Ajmer and had reached near village Dudu on Jaipur- Ajmer National Highway No.8 at around 11.30 pm, the opponent no.2 who was driving a open Truck-trailer bearing registration No.RJ-14-GA-2008 came from behind in excessive and uncontrollable speed and successfully overtake the Tata Sumo. However, since the said Truck- trailer which was 30 to 35 ft long took sudden turn to proceed on Jaipur – Ajmer road without giving any side signal or without giving any indication to the vehicle following, resulted into the accident causing grievous hurt to the original claimant.

2.2. The claim petition was thus preferred by the injured claim through his wife as power of attorney holder on 20.10.2007. The said claim petition was filed seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.63,77,300/- with proportionate costs and interest. The said claim petition was registered as MACP No.776 of 2007.

2.3. At the time of accident, the opponent no.2 was joined in the same claim petition as owner of the offending vehicle – Truck – trailer. The said vehicle was insured with opponent no.3- National Insurance Company Limited – appellant herein, whereas opponent no.4 was joined as owner – driver of Tata Sumo vehicle and opponent no.5 as insurer of the said vehicle. Pending the claim petition, opponent no.1 who is the driver and owner of the vehicle was deleted pursuant to the order passed below Exh.26. The opponent no.2 had appeared before the Tribunal and had contested the claim petition by filing a written statement. Similarly, opponent no.4 had also appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.82. Opponent no.4 had strongly objected to the liability alleged and had contended that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the opponent no.1 i.e. the driver of the Truck – trailer. Opponents nos. 3 & 5 i.e. respective Insurance Company have sought permission at Exh.39 and Exh.40 respectively under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was allowed by the Tribunal. The written statement has also been filed by the opponent no.3 Insurance Company at Exh.32 and by opponent no.5 at Exh.34.

2.4. The Tribunal has framed the following issues at Exh.35.

“1. Whether it is proved that the claimant sustained injuries on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?

2. What amount, the claimant is entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents?

3. What order?

2.5. Upon appreciation of the evidence and the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the original opponent no.4- Insurance Company.

3. This Court by order dated 13.06.2017 had admitted the appeal and in Civil Applicat