The assessment of future earning capacity must consider the specific nature of the claimant's work, avoiding duplication in compensation awards for overlapping heads.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.

2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, impugning the judgment and award dated 30.04.2019, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 16/2017, whereby the appellant was directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 24,42,464/- along with interest at the bank rate on 12.06.2018 to the claimant.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of this appeal are, in brief, that on 13.11.2016 at about 1.00 am, the claimant Md. Salamuddin @ Abdul Salam Ali and his wife, namely, Sabida Begum were travelling by a bus bearing Registration No. AS-01-W0043. When the said bus reached Paikan, under Krishnai Police Station, in Goalpara District, the bicycles loaded on the roof of the bus came in contact with a high-tension electricity wire, as a result of which the bus got electrocuted and the passengers sustained injuries. The wife of the claimant succumbed to her injuries on the same day in the hospital. The other passengers including the claimant were admitted at Goalpara Civil Hospital. The claimant was later on shifted to Nemcare Hospital and thereafter, Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH), where both his legs had to be amputed below the knee.

4. Thereafter, the claimant by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.2, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the aforementioned vehicular accident. The said claim case was registered as MAC Case No. 15/2017.

5. The present appellant contested the claim of the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing the written statement wherein it denied the averments made in the claim petition and also denied its liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. The owner as well as the driver of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in spite of receiving notice, hence, the aforesaid enquiry proceeded ex-parte against them.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:

“i. Whether on 13-11-2016, at about 01:00 A.M., at Paikan, under Krishnal Police Station, an accident has arisen due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing registration No.AS-01-W-0043 on the part of its driver and whether the said accident has caused injuries to Salamuddin @Abdul Salam Ali ?

ii. If so, whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation, and if yes, what should be the quantum and who amongst the opposite parties is liable to pay the compensation amount ?

7. During the enquiry, the claimant adduced evidence of one witness and exhibited certain documents. The Insurance Company also adduced evidence of one witness and exhibited certain document. Ultimately by the judgment and award which has been impugned in this appeal both the issues were decided in favour of the claimant and the present appellant was directed to pay compensation to the claimant in the manner as already described in the foregoing paragraphs.

8. Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal mainly on two grounds. Firstly, he submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had erred in treating the loss of future earning capacity of the claimant at the rate of 80% in as much as there is no guidelines in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to assess loss of future earning capacity. However, he submits that the Schedule-I of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 provides that in case of amputation of both legs below knee the loss earning capacity is to be regarded as 50%. He submits that th