In motor accident injury claims, add 40% to notional income of self-employed below 40 years for future prospects; separately award for loss of amenities where disability affects life activities; housewife services notionally valued.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant- petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘MV Act’) against the award dated 28.08.2015, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, HP, in MAC Petition No.1- S/2 of 2014, with a prayer to enhance the awarded amount of compensation.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 22.12.2012, the petitioner was going to attend her duty in M/s Star Com Electronics, New Industrial Estate, Chambaghat, Solan and when she reached on the main road near Brewery, a vehicle (Innova Toyota) bearing registration No.PB-11AA-0752 came from Solan side, which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the petitioner as a result of which, she suffered multiple grievous injuries on her head and right leg. Initially, she was taken to Regional Hospital, Solan, from where, she was referred to IGMC, Shimla and remained admitted there from 22.12.2012 to 30.01.2013. She was again admitted in Regional Hospital, Solan from 08.02.2013 to 09.02.2013 and thereafter at IGMC, Shimla from 14.05.2013 to 25.05.2013, where she was again operated and bone grafting was done on 18.05.2013. The petitioner further alleged that after the accident, she was totally bedridden and was still under treatment. Her family had already spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- on her treatment. Hence, she prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.

3. Respondents No.1 & 2 (owner/driver) contested the petition and filed a joint reply, wherein, it has been averred that the accident was the result of negligent act of the petitioner herself, who all of sudden appeared at the curve to cross NH in a negligent manner and struck against the vehicle. It has further been averred that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.2 as he was driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously and had also applied brakes to avoid the accident in question. It has been denied that the petitioner had incurred more than Rs.5,00,000/- on her treatment.

4. In its reply, respondent No.3/Insurance Company, took the preliminary objections regarding maintainability, that the driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence, that the vehicle was not having a valid registration certificate and there was collusion between the petitioner as well as respondents No.1 and 2. On merits, it was denied that the petitioner had suffered any disability and the expenses, as alleged, were false and exaggerated. It was submitted that the claim sought by the petitioner was highly excessive.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 18.11.2024:-

“1. Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident having taken place on 22.12.2012 at about 8:30 a.m. at place village Kothon, near Brewery, on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.PB-11AD-0752 by respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation , if so, to what ex