IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need to assess future earning potential for non-earning minors in compensation cases, particularly considering the impact of injuries on their functional capacity.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. Doshi, J.

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 18.08.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhuj - Kutch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.423 of 1996.

1.1. On service of summons, claimant has filed Cross Objection for enhancement of claim amount.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

2.1 On 01.10.1995, minor - J along with her relatives was going in ST Bus No.GJ-1-Z-8118 from Bhuj to Palanpur, when they reached near place of accident, Truck No.GQY-5271 driven by its driver came in negligent and rash manner and dashed the motorcycle and as a result, the minor J received serious injuries.

2.2 FIR of incident was registered before the concerned Police Station.

2.3. The claimant filed claim petition under section 166 of MV Act being MACP No.423 of 1996 claiming compensation of Rs.14,50,000/- along with interest jointly and severally from the opponents.

2.4. After appreciating evidence on record, learned Tribunal was pleased to pass judgment and award in tune of Rs.7,99,250/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition.

2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and award dated 18.08.2011, the Insurance Company has filed present appeal.

3. Learned advocate Ms.Bhaya for Insurance Company submitted that appeal is filed on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo, more particularly, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.7,99,250/- to the original claimant as assessment of compensation is on higher side. It is submitted that learned Tribunal assessed compensation on various heads having no support of evidence. She would further submit that learned Tribunal has granted compensation for future medical expenses etc., which should not be granted in absence of documentary evidence. Therefore, it is submitted to reduce the amount of compensation granted to the claimant by allowing the first appeal.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Dave for the claimants who has filed Cross Objection for enhancement of compensation submitted that though learned Tribunal has granted compensation on other heads are reasonable, yet learned Tribunal erred in taking notional income of the claimant and calculated compensation without adding loss of future prospects. It is submitted that learned Tribunal erred in apply multiplier of 15 instead of 18. Therefore, it is submitted to recalculate the compensation so far as loss of income as well as loss of future prospects by allowing Cross Objection.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, at the outset, it ti be noticed that minor J at the relevant time was travelling ST Bus No.GJ-1-Z-8118 along with parents and relatives from Bhuj to Palanpur on seat no.21 to 23 and when the said Bus reached near village Makel on National Highway No.15, it dashed with Truck No.GQY-5271, resulting into road accident. In this accident, minor J received injuries on right hand which was later on amputated from elbow. Learned Tribunal assessed Rs.15,000/- as notional income and applied 45% disability and further applied multiplier of 15 for assessing loss of future income. So for loss of future income, learned Tribunal granted Rs.1,01,250/-. Minor J at the relevant time was 5 years. Apart from calculating compensation for future earning, learned Tribunal granted medical expenses at Rs.30,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- permanent disability, Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. In total, learned Tribunal granted Rs.7,99,250/- as compensation. Truck driver was held liable to pay compensation along with 9% interest from the date of petition till realization. Truck driver was held sole negligent in causing road accident. Consequently, driver, owner and insurer of Truck were dir