The court established that future prospects must be considered in compensation calculations, clarifying that a disability rating directly affects compensation awarded.

JUDGMENT :

J.L. ODEDRA, J.

ORDER in First Appeal No.1843 of 2015:

1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and award passed in MACP No.191 of 2007 dated 24.05.2013 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vyara.

2. It appears that by way of the common impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has been pleased to award a sum of Rs.4,08,240/- along with the simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum in MACP No.191 of 2007 and in respect of MACP NO.192 of 2007, the award amount is Rs.2,86,400/- along with the simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum. It may be noted that the MACP No.191 of 2001 is in respect of the injured claimant Mr.Aarifali Sherali Saiyed. Where, insofar as the heirs of the deceased Rameshbhai Rathod have preferred MACP No.192 of 2007.

3. The accident is of 30.05.2007. It appears that on the fateful day, at about 9:30 p.m., the applicant of MACP No.191 of 2007, together with one Mr.Rameshbhai Bhulabhai Rathod were travelling on motorcycle belonging to the claimant of MACP No.191 of 2001, bearing registration no.GJ-15-E- 5805. They were travelling on Surat-Dhulia Highway road. When they reached the outskirts of village Paniyari, an ST bus bearing registration no. GJ-18-Y-155, driven by the opponent no. 1 Mr.Yakubmohhamed Lunat, came in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed the said bus on to the motorcycle referred to hereinabove. As a result, the injured applicant in MACP No.191 of 2007 suffered injuries, however, the pillion rider Mr.Rameshbhai Bhulabhai Rathod lost his life owing to the injury occurred in the aforesaid accident. Hence, the said claim petitions.

4. The present common judgment and award has been challenged only on the ground of quantum. It was submitted that negligence to the extent of 20% attributed to the claimant (driver of motorcycle) is also not challenged. It may be noted that again the income per se in respect of the MACP No. 191 of 2007 has not been disputed. However, what has been disputed that the Tribunal has not been pleased to award future prospects. Moreover, the amount under conventional heads were on the lower side and there was no thing awarded towards prosthetic leg.

5. At the outset, attention was drawn of this Court in respect of the functional disability of the injured applicant in MACP No.191 of 2007 (hereinafter “the injured applicant”) had suffered. The attention was drawn of this Court to the fact that the Disability Certificate in respect of the said injured applicant was adduced on record at Exhibit-34.On perusal of the Disability Certificate, it was submitted that the said Disability Certificate clearly indicates disability of the injured applicant to the tune of more than 80%. It was submitted that the said disability has transcended to the functional disability to the tune of 100%.

6. It was submitted that, apparently, the injured applicant was engaged in doing color work/paint jobs. As a result of the disability suffered by him, namely, owing to amputation of leg below knee and amputation of thumb of the right hand, the injured applicant is no longer in a position to continue with the said work. It was, therefore, urged that the disability of the injured applicant be considered at 100%.

7. It was next submitted that as such, owing to the fact that there was no evidence to substantiate the income of the injured applicant, more particularly, when in the pleading, the injured applicant has maintained that he was earning Rs.3,500/- per month, but, in his affidavit of examination- in-chief, he