The court upheld the principle that compensation must be based on realistic assessments of earning capacity and substantiated claims, rejecting unproven future medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as these arise from the same Award.

2. On 8.5.2012 at about 5.15 PM an accident involving two motor vehicles i.e. motorcycle No. HP-40B- 2052 and Jeep No. HP-54-0818 took place at place Pir-Bindli, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P.

3. Om Parkash, appellant in FAO No. 114 of 2019 was riding the motorcycle. He suffered injuries in the said accident.

4. Om Parkash (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which came to be registered as MACP No. (RBT) 36-K/II/13/14 in the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Kangra at Dharmshala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’).

5. As per claimant, his motorcycle was hit by Jeep No. HP-54-0818 and as a result of which, his right leg was crushed.It was alleged that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep No.HP-54-0818.

6. FIR No. 36 of 2012 dated 8.5.2012 was registered at Police Station, Haripur, District Kangra.

7. The claimant allegedly sustained grievous injuries. As per claimant, he had remained as indoor patient from 8.5.2012 to 11.5.2012 in Dr. RPGMC, Kangra at Tanda; from 12.5.2012 to 22.5.2012 in DMC Ludhiana and thereafter from 23.5.2012 to 22.6.2012 again in Dr. RPGMC, Kangra at Tanda. It was claimed that due to crush injuries, the right leg of claimant was amputated causing permanent disablement. He was being attended regularly by his wife and another person, who was being paid Rs. 3000/- per month. The claimant further alleged that due to amputation of leg, he was not able to work.

8. The claimant alleged that he was earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month and was leading happy life with his family. Claimant was allegedly working as a Mason and in addition, he was providing shuttering and concrete mixer on hire for construction of buildings.

9. On such assertions, a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-was claimed as compensation.

10. The owner of Jeep No. HP-54-0818 was impleaded as respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘owner’). Driver Sameer Sharma was impleaded as respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘driver’) and the National Insurance Company was impleaded as respondent No.3 insurer of the Jeep (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurer’).

11. The owner and driver filed their joint reply. The allegation with respect to rash and negligent driving of the driver being cause of accident was specifically denied. As a counter, it was alleged that the claimant himself was negligent while riding the motorcycle. It was contended that the road was narrow and the claimant was riding the motorcycle in high speed. When he saw the jeep driven by the respondent coming from opposite directions, he got perplexed and resultantly fell on the road. It was further stated that the jeep driven by respondent No.2 had not even touched the motorcycle of claimant. It was also denied that the income of the petitioner was about 25,000/- per month. As per owner and driver, the claimant was earning Rs. 250/- per day as wages that too for a few days in a month. The plea of the claimant that he was supplying shuttering material and mixer machine was also denied.

12. The insurer filed its reply. It was alleged that the driver was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. The petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle. Rest of the contents of the petition were also denied generally.

13. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“i) Whether the petitioner had suffered multiple injuries in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No. HP-54- 0818 by respondent No.2 on 8.5.2012 at about 5.15. p.m. at Peerbindli? OPP

ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP

iii) Whether respondent No.