The assessment of compensation for personal injury must reflect the actual impact of injuries on earning capacity, not merely the percentage of disability.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against award dated 4.12.2015 passed in Claim Petition No. 19/14/2009, titled as Nitya Nand Vs. Hardev Singh Saini and others, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. camp at Jogindernagar, whereby claim petition preferred by respondent No. 1-claimant Nitya Nand has been allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.4,53,047/- alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2. Respondent No. 1-claimant Nitya Nand had preferred the claim petition for receiving injury in a motor accident involving Motor Cycle No. HP-33A-6577 and HP-33A-6201. At the time of accident Motor Cycle HP-33A-6577, owned by respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh, was being driven by respondent No. 3 Chhabil Kumar, whereas respondent No. 4 Tek Chand is owner cum driver of another Motor Cycle.

3. Occurrence of the accident, injuries received by respondent No. 1-claimant and details of his treatment are not in dispute. Present appeal has been preferred by assailing the quantum of compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under different heads and also on the ground that liability to pay compensation is also to be shared by the owner or insurer of another Motor Cycle involved in the accident who, according to appellant, was also equally responsible for the accident.

4. So far as involvement of another Motor Cycle HP-33A-6201 is concerned, in the FIR, there is reference of Motor Cycle HP-33A-6201, but it has been categorically mentioned in the FIR that accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of rider of another Pulsar Bike, who was trying to overtake Motor Cycle HP-33A-6201 and because of rash and negligent act of rider of another Motor Cycle i.e. HP- 33A-6577 respondent-claimant Nitya Nand suffered injuries after collusion of both Motor Cycles. There is no other evidence placed on record by the Insurance Company or any body else including the driver and owner of Motor Cycle HP-33A-6577 with respect to rash and negligent driving of Motor Cycle No. HP-33A-6201. Therefore, for no evidence on record, it cannot be concluded only on the basis of ground taken in the appeal or for reference of another Motor Cycle in the FIR, that there was contributory negligence of both Motor Cycles involved in the accident. For want of material on record plea of appellant Insurance Company with respect to equal liability to pay compensation by owner/rider of another Motor Cycle or its’ insurer, is not sustainable and is rejected.

5. With respect to quantum, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company has pointed out that disability certificate, placed on record as Ex. RW-4/C, is not sufficient evidence to determine disability as well as loss of earning, for non examination of any Doctor who had issued this certificate. Further that the certificate even if considered in evidence, it depicts that disability was temporary which was to be reviewed after one year and the claimant Nitya Nand has not produced any evidence with respect to continuity of disability, discontinuity of his job and loss of earning.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also questioned the amount of medical treatment awarded on the basis of medical bills produced in evidence, production whereof in evidence was objected to by the Insurance Company regarding the mode of proof. Further that awarding sum of Rs.40,000/- as attendant charges for engaging two attendants during the treatment and amount of Rs.20,000/- towards special diet is also not permissible and sustainable.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for appellant that considering 25% disability as permanent disability and thereby awarding Rs.1,98,000/- for suffering 25% permanent disability causing the loss of income to the same proportion is also contrary to the settled law of the land because claimant has failed to establish 25% functional disabi