The court established that future prospects must be included in compensation calculations for claimants with significant disabilities.

ORDER

1. The aforesaid two appeals have arisen from a judgment and award dated 18.01.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar in Claim Petition No.575/2014 titled as Prakash Chand Sharma Vs. Mahendra Kumar Sharma & Ors., whereby Tribunal while allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs.16,29,465/- as a compensation in favour of the appellant claimant in CMA No.3050/2017.

2. CMA No.3050/2017 has been filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, whereas, CMA No.1367/2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Tribunal on various grounds.

3. CMA No.3050/2017-Learned counsel for the appellantclaimant submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly discarded 100% disability of injured Prakash Chand Sharma. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also submits that during evidence, disability certificate Ex.16 was exhibited and it was proved by Dr. Mahesh Vashisth an orthopedic specialist. So, finding of the Tribunal regarding assessing the disability of the appellant-claimant to the extent of 50% be set aside and disability of injured be considered as 100%.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also submits that while deciding the claim petition, the Tribunal has not awarded the amount regarding future prospects of injured. Since, injured received 100% disability, he cannot move and he is dependant upon others. So, amount regarding future prospects be awarded.

5. CMA No.1367/2017-Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant and submitted that claimant had not produced neurosurgeon and treating doctor in evidence. So, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion regarding 50% disability of the injured. So, appeal of the claimant be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submitted that there is a delay in lodging the FIR of 11 days. Involvement of vehicle is not proved. So, finding regarding accident and involvement of vehicle be set aside and claim petition be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submitted that income of the claimant be assessed as notional income because claimant failed to prove his income. So, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company be allowed.

8. Learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Jithendran Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.6494/2021 decided on 27.10.2021; (2) The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Vimla Devi & Ors. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4950/2012 decided on 06.05.2022 and (3) Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.735/2020 decided on 05.02.2020.

9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.8981/2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10383/2007) decided on 18.10.2010.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties.

11. It is an admitted position that no neurosurgeon and treating doctor were produced by the claimant to prove 100% disability of claimant before the Tribunal. So, in my considered opinion, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that disability certificate Ex.16 was not duly proved by the claimant. So, the Tribunal rightly assessed the disability of the injured to the extent of 50%. It is also admitted position that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount regarding future prospects of the injured. So, in my considered opinion, claimant was below 50 years of age, claimant is entitled to get 25% towards future prospects.