The court established that compensation for personal injuries must reflect actual income loss and consider the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

Nisha M. Thakore, J.

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1988”) by the original claimant – appellant herein seeking enhancement of the award amount granted by the judgment and award dated 29.04.2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch in MACP No.560 of 2004.

2.0. In nutshell, the occurrence of the accident as explained by the original claimant in the claim petition is reproduced here under:

2.1. On 07.01.2004, as per the case of the original claimant, he had boarded from Bharuch in an S.T. Bus bearing registration no.GJ-18-V-8124 to reach Dhule. While the said ST Bus had reached Surat Dhule Highway, the vehicle Jeep had broken down on that highway. It is further alleged that in the early morning hours at around 7 to 7.30 a.m. when Bus reached near the vicinity of Aamkled village, the Ashok Leyland vehicle Truck No. TN-28-V-7497 which was coming from the opposite direction hit the S.T. Bus. The accident took place on Surat-Nagpur Highway which falls within the limit of Sakri Road of Dhule Taluka Police Station of Maharashtra State. According to the claimant, both the vehicles were driven in full speed and in reckless manner, because of the negligence of the driver of both the vehicles, the accident had occurred. The impact was such that both the vehicles smashed and pressed from the driver’s cabin till the end part of the body of both the vehicles. Referring to the aforesaid facts, it is alleged that the drivers of both the vehicles could not control their respective vehicles and dashed with the road side stones and standing trees which resulted into the serious injuries to the passengers sitting inside the S.T. Bus. It is further contended that they were removed from the S.T. Bus and were immediately shifted to the hospital.

3.0. The claim petition was preferred by the claimant under section 166 of the Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch, which was registered as MACP No.560 of 2004. In the aforesaid claim petition, the driver of ST Bus was joined as opponent no.1 and the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation was joined as opponent no.2. The driver of the opposite vehicle was joined as respondent no.3 and owner of the said vehicle was joined as opponent no.4. The insurer of the offending vehicle Truck was joined as opponent no.5. Initially, the claimant had sought compensation of an amount of Rs.18 lakhs, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.23 lakhs in view of the order passed below application at Exh.31, with interest at the rate of 18% p.a and proportionate cost, to be recovered from the opponents jointly and severally.

4.0. On service of summons, the driver of the S.T. Corporation chose not to enter his appearance and hence proceedings were conducted ex-parte, whereas S.T. Corporation was represented through the lawyer and the written statement was filed at Exh.26 followed by an amended written statement at Exh.33 denying the allegations made in the claim petition against them. The opponent nos. 3 and 4 were served through the registered post AD, however, they chose not to contest the claim petition and therefore, the Tribunal had proceeded ex-parte against them. So far as the insurer of the offending truck is concerned, it was represented through a lawyer and a written statement was also filed at Exh.29 denying their liability. The defence was raised with regard to valid and effective driving license. The amount of compensation claimed by the applicant – original claimant was objected to. The issue of age, income, expenditure of medical treatment and other expenses as well as permanent disability, occurrence of accident and claim amount were seriously objected.

5.0. The Tribunal considering the pleadings of the respective parties proceeded to frame the issue at Exh.22, which are reproduced here under :

“1. Whether it is proved that the claimant sustained injuries on account of the ras