The court emphasized the need to consider future loss of earning, medical expenses, and non-pecuniary damages in cases of permanent disablement, as outlined in Raj Kumar's case.

1. Heard Mr. B.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. More, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. This appeal is by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 7-4-12 passed in MAC Case No. 323/2007 (MAC Case No. 21/2007) by MACT No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati.

3. The claimant Chandan Kumar Das sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident on 09-12-2006, involving the vehicle bearing registration No. NL-01/A-9141, owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Learned tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,69,400/-, which consisted of Rs. 89,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 2,75,400/- for loss of future earning and Rs. 5,000/- for pain, shock and suffering.

4. Aggrieved by the above award, the claimant preferred the appeal seeking enhancement.

5. Learned counsel, Mr. B.K. Jain for the appellant submits that the claimant was a music teacher by profession and besides getting a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month, he was also earning Rs. 4,000/- from private tuition and the claimant adduced evidence to that effect. However, while determining the future loss of earning, the learned tribunal did not take into consideration the income of the claimant from private tuition and thereby, failed to award a just and reasonable compensation. Further contention of the learned counsel is that the claimant incurred medical expenses for an amount of Rs.1,35,675/-. However, the learned tribunal awarded only Rs. 89,000/- and failed to take into consideration the expenses incurred by the claimant for undergoing operation during pendency of the proceeding, for which additional evidence was adduced. Although from the documentary evidence adduced by the claimant, it appears that the claimant had incurred medical expenses of Rs. 1,35,675/-, the learned tribunal granted a lesser amount without assigning any reason. It is contended by learned counsel that tribunal granted only Rs. 5,000/- for pain, shock and suffering and no amount was granted on account of loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Though, the claimant suffered permanent disability, the learned tribunal taking an erroneous view, that compensation on the non-pecuniary heads are to be granted strictly under the provision of Schedule–II of the M.V. Act, granted a very meagre amount and therefore, urged this Court for enhancement of compensation and interest to the extent of 9%.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co., Mr. M. More submits that the claimant was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-, which was taken into consideration by the tribunal. So far the additional income of Rs. 4,000/- from private tuition is concerned, as there was no convincing evidence, learned tribunal rightly refused to take into account such income from private tuition. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel, that though 45% disability of the claimant was related to the particular limb, and not to the whole body, learned tribunal, without properly assessing the impact of such disability on the earning capacity, mechanically awarded 45% loss of earning, which was on the higher side, and therefore, no enhancement with regard to loss of income is called for.

7. As to the medical expenses, the contention of the appellant is that initially the claimant incurred expenses of Rs. 95,896/- for medical treatment and after adducing evidence, the claimant had to undergo another operation for removal of nails, for which, he had to spend Rs.39,780/- and the said amount was not taken into consideration by the learned tribunal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. contends, that the evidence of medical expenses with regard to the operation for removing nails, also included medical vouchers/bills for an amount of Rs. 12,000/-, which did not relate to operation, and as such, required to be rejected.