The court held that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation by considering only 15% permanent disability instead of the actual 18% disability suffered by the appellant and in not awarding any amount towards future prospects.

JUDGMENT

1. At the risk and cost of learned counsel for the appellant, service of notice upon the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed with.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and disposed of finally.

3. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award 05/05/2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 75/2014. Vide judgment dated 05/05/2017, an amount of Rs.2,02,696/- has been awarded to the present appellant on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred on 16/09/2013.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 16/09/2013, when the appellant was going on foot over the public road towards Chittorgarh to Ajmer, an Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.RJ.01-C.B.-4478 which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the appellant, due to which he sustained several injuries. In these circumstances, a claim petition was filed before learned Tribunal.

5. Learned Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition filed by the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue Nos.3 and 4 are not just and proper as the appellant has suffered three simple injuries and one grievous injury. On account of the injuries suffered by him, the Medical Board assessed permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of 18%. While calculating the award in the present case, the Tribunal has taken into consideration only 15% permanent disability. Thus, the Tribunal has erred in calculating the amount of compensation. He further submits that no amount towards the future prospects has been awarded in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. AIR 2020 SC 4424 and Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways 2014 ACJ 692. Therefore, amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has correctly awarded the amount of compensation in the present case. He submits that the findings recorded by Tribunal on issue No.3 and 4 are also correct as the Tribunal has considered the permanent disability of the whole body to the extent of 15%. Therefore, the same does not require any interference by this Court. However, learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not in a position to controvert the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. (supra) and San jay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways (supra) for awarding the amount towards future prospects.

8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as relevant record of the case.

9. This Court finds that it is an admitted position that the appellant suffered the permanent disability to the extent of 18% on account of the injuries suffered in the accident which occurred on 16/09/2013. Thus, the Tribunal was not justified in taking into consideration the permanent disability to the extent of 15% only, while calculating the amount. Hence, 18% permanent disability is required to be taken in computing the amount which is as under:-

10. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1,48,512/- for loss of income is required to be paid in this case.

11. The insured was 42 years of age. Therefore, 25% of the amount is required to be added towards future prospects in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. (supra) and San jay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways (supra). Thus, the amount of Rs. 37,128/- is required to be paid in this case.

12. Rest of the amount awarded by the Tribunal is maintained being reasonably paid in the present case. Thus, the amount is recomputed as under :-