The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct assessment of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident, including the determination of notional income, consideration of future prospects, and the application of relevant case laws to ensure just and fair compensation.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant (injured) against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2011 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 302/2011 (629/2004) whereby an amount of Rs. 3,11,000/- was awarded as compensation under various heads on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 18.07.2004.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimant-appellant and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,11,000/- (including medical bills, food, pain and suffering and loss of amenities) in favour of the claimant-appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of accident, the injured was 14 years of age and he has sustained injuries in the accident and was operated on 25.07.2004 and due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, his left leg was amputated and because of that he sustained 70% permanent disability.

4. Learned counsel further submits that while assessing the income of the injured, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured at a very lower side i.e. Rs. 1,000/- annually. He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors. reported in MACD 2013 (SC) 289 has determined the notional income of the child aged 14 years as Rs. 30,000/- annually. Learned counsel further submits that the said ratio has also been adopted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Master Sampat Singh v. Arjun Singh & Ors. in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 641/2008 decided on 23.11.2017.

5. Learned counsel further submits that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Learned counsel therefore, prayed that recomputation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and also in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of Master Sampat Singh (supra).

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that this is a second round of litigation. Earlier also, this Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the matter on the point of quantum and the quantum/compensation of Rs. 3,11,000/- determined by the Tribunal is already on higher side which does not require any interference. He further submits that the accident occurred in the year 2004 and a reasonable amount of compensation of Rs. 3,11,000/- has already been awarded, which should not be enhanced after lapse of a long time.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein it has been held that when the injuries sustained in the accident do not result in loss of earning capacity then the exorbitant amount of compensation should not be granted. He further submits that though the disability certificate (Ex. 14) was produced on the record by the injured, but the doctor, who issued the certificate has not been examined before the Court in the witness box and no reliance can be placed on such disability certificate.

8. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar @ Raju v. Yudhvir Singh & Anr. reported in 2008 ACJ 2131.

9. Lastly, he argued that the that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has rightly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. T