IMPORTANT POINT
The assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings depends on the effect and impact of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured. The court should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with award dated 6.4.2018, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., whereby tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition No. 27-S/2 of 2015 having been filed by the respondent No.1-petitioner, saddled the appellant-Insurance Company with liability to pay compensation to respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.32,38,500/-alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short “the Act”), praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid award passed by the learned MACT below.

2. Precisely, the undisputed facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand are that on 14.4.2015, car bearing registration No. HP-14C-0208 being driven by respondent No.2, rashly and negligently, hit a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-14B-2746 being driven by respondent No.1-Yash Pal, as a result of which, respondent No.1 suffered multiple injuries on his head, face and several parts of the body. Since accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, police after having received information with regard to the accident, lodged FIR. Though initially, respondent No.1 was shifted to Government Hospital, but he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, wherein he remained admitted for 28 days in emergency ward. Since no bed was allotted to respondent No.1 at PGI, he was shifted to Eden Hospital, near Elante Mall, Chandigarh. In the accident, respondent No.1 suffered 100% disability and was compelled to spend more than Rs. 15.00 lac on his treatment. Since on account of permanent disability to the extent of 100%, respondent No.1 also became disabled to do anything in future, he filed petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking therein compensation under different heads.

3. Aforesaid claim put forth by respondent No.1 came to be resisted by the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 though nowhere denied the factum with regard to accident, but claimed that accident had taken place due to the negligence of respondent No.1. He also denied that there is disablement in the body of respondent No.1 to the tune of 100% and hence, he has spent more than Rs. 15.00 lac on his treatment. Respondent No.2 also claimed that since offending vehicle was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company, liability, if any, to pay compensation is of appellant-Insurance Company.

4. Appellant-Insurance Company, while claiming that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 also disputed that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- before the accident. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied that on account of injuries allegedly suffered in the accident, respondent No.1 is unable to move and is bed ridden. Lastly, appellant-Insurance Company specifically raised plea with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by stating that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid license at the time of the accident.

5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record, learned Tribunal below framed following issues:

1. Whether on the morning of 14.4.2015 around 10:20 a.m. near PNB, Dharampur, Police Station, Dharampur on the National Highway, respondent No.1 was driving car bearing registration No. HP-14C-0208 rashly and negligently which resulted in causing multiple injuries to the petitioner when motorcycle bearing registration No. HP- 14B-2746 having been driven by the petitioner knocked down by the aforesaid car, as alleged?OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/-alongwith interest from the respondents jointly and severally, as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether petition of the petitioner is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-2.

4. Whether the aforesaid car being plied in violation of