Compensation for injuries must be based on actual loss of income and the impact of disability on earning capacity, not on arbitrary assessments.

ORDER

1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order, hence, both the appeals are being decided by this common order.

2. National Insurance Company has filed appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (herein afterwards referred to as 'MV Act') against the award dated 28.10.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara (herein afterwards referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 454/2018 [Dr. Rajesh Joshi vs. Late Jai Singh & Ors], whereby respondent claimant was awarded Rs.5,97,692/- as compensation. Whereas, claimant Dr. Rajesh Joshi has filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

4. On 14.1.2018, in the evening at 5:40 PM, claimant was going on a motorcycle from Banswara to Barodiya. On the way, Suraj respondent no.3 herein, while driving his motorcycle RJ 03-SS-8626 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the claimant, on account of which, claimant sustained injuries. First Information Report No. 24/2018 was lodged by the nephew of the claimant. Police after investigation, filed charge-sheet against respondent no.3 Suraj.

5. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act. claiming compensation against the driver, owner and the insurer of the motorcycle of the RJ 03-SS-8626. The claim petition was contested. The claimant appeared as witness in support of his case and total 52 documents were exhibited to substantiate his claim. No evidence on behalf of the respondent was produced.

6. Learned Tribunal passed a claim of Rs.5,97,692/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

7. Terming quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal with the averments that claimant was in the Government Job, working as Associate Professor in Govind Singh University, Banswara. It is alleged that on account the accident, no loss was incurred in the income of the claimant. Learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.5 Lakh in the head of loss of income. Learned Tribunal also erred in awarding lumpsum amount in the head of loss of earning, which is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Claimant sustained fracture in his leg for which disability certificate was produced but the doctor issuing the said disability certificate was not produced to prove the same. Learned Tribunal erred in relying upon the disability certificate and calculating loss of income on the basis of percentage of disability @ 15%. It is averred that though the learned Tribunal in its judgment referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar : 2011 TAC 1, however, that judgment was not considered in its true sense.

8. Learned counsel for the claimant has assailed the impugned award submitting that the learned Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation to the claimant, hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award on the point of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra) and prayed to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tibunal, appropriately.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant remained hospitalized from 14.1.2018 to 20.20.1.2018 and from 24.1.2018 to 29.1.2018 for 11 to 12 days. The claimant suffered fracture in his leg on account of which his future prospectus have been adversely affected. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre sum of amount and hence, appeal filed by the claimant be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced.

12. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the claimant is G