The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper assessment of permanent disability, loss of future prospects, and computation of income in motor accident compensation cases.

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters are being heard and disposed of finally.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1234/2017:-

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 13.01.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur in M.A.C. Case No. 965/2015, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,17,700/- to the appellant-claimant on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred on 19.02.2015.

3. The learned Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the claimant-appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the finding of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No.3 with respect to the consideration of the permanent disability is incorrect. He submits that the Medical Board gave the certificate of disability of the injured to the extent of 42%, whereas, the Tribunal took into consideration permanent disability to the extent of 20% only. He further submits that there were three fractures on the body of the injured-appellant and, therefore, the assessment of the permanent disability of the whole body to the extent of 20% only, is on the lower side. He submits that the loss of income towards future prospects is also wrongly assessed by the Tribunal and the same is required to be re-assessed in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma V/s Haryana Roadways reported in AIR 2014 SC 995 & Pappu Deo Yadav V/s Naresh Kumar & Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 4424.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that in view of the evidence produced by the appellant in support of his claim petition, the Tribunal correctly awarded the amount of compensation in the present case. He submits that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.3 does not suffer from any infirmity as the Medical Board assessed the disability of the injured only on the particular parts of the body which suffered injuries and not of the whole body. He is not in a position to controvert the submissions of the learned counsel on the point of non-payment of the amount on account of loss of future prospects in the light of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant.

6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment and award dated 13.01.2017 as well as other relevant record of the case.

7. The appellant-injured suffered three fractures of left femur bone, left clavicle and right fibula respectively and the Certificate Ex.31 issued by the Medical Board shows the disability to the extent of 42%. Considering the fact that the appellant-claimant suffered three fractures in the accident, this Court feels that the ends of justice will be met, if the disability of the whole body is taken to be 30%. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.3 is modified and it is held that the disability of the injured-appellant is taken as 30% instead of 20% while computing the award.

8. Further, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma V/s Haryana Roadways (Supra) and Pappu Deo Yadav V/s Naresh Kumar & Ors. (Supra), 40% amount towards the loss of future prospects is required to be taken into consideration while recomputing the award in the present case. The joint re-computation of the award submitted by the learned counsel for the parties is as under : -